Should Bolt compete with ppl his weight (&height)?

[Powell]

So what competition would Bolt have in the 195cm+ category? :P

Tim Goebel and Florian Schwartzhoff(spelling is off).

Goebel was a junior phenom, who never made it in the senior category, and Schwarthoff was a hurdler. And they both retired a while ago.

[track_expert]

[quote=Jerome Marrow][quote="track_expert":1jezgra9][quote=Speedfirst]

What about the theory that it is predicted that in the future speed events will be dominated by people who are even more different to 'normal' people than our current elite sprinters are?

Aren't the current basketball players taller on average than players 50 years ago? Isn't the NBA dominated by people "who are even more different to 'normal' people"? Is anyone making a big deal about that?

Aren't the awareness of the importance of physical fitness, proper diet and nutrition and weight training all contributing factors to the fact that on average sprinters are bigger and heavier now than 50 years ago?

Sprinters aren't any taller though and the GOAT is still a guy who was 5'9". I am not even sure there is any different in body types except more muscularity which is, sadly, likely because of not only including weight training, but because of the other change that has been around that basically started about 50 years ago (AAS use).

The thing that is annoying about people freaking out about Bolt is that tall people have sprinted a looooooong time and they have not consistently performed better. Bolt is an exception, but there are plenty of people under 6' that kick the shit out of people over 6'. Mo, Gatlin, Tyson, BJ, TMont..... all under 6' and had no problem running extremely fast times.

Goat? Mo?

Mo is the GOOT.

Greatest of Old Times

One MEET....doesn't the GOAT make.

Still only one meet.[/quote:1jezgra9]

Put Mo in his prime against Bolt and see if you still think he's the GOAT [/quote:1jezgra9]

Bolt hasn't even won a World Championship yet. He won the Olympics--phenomenal. Insane world records--even better. He hasn't had the longevity to be considered a GOAT, at all. I should correct myself and say he hasn't had any longevity since he has only become talked about as one of the best of all time from one season, while Mo was at the top from '97-'04. Mo set world records in the 60m and 100m and won numerous titles. Hell, he won titles over a greater range than Bolt has (60m, 100m, and 200m)!

Give it a few more years and the GOAT talk can start. Hell, if Mo hadn't gotten hurt in Edmonton, the 9.69 that Bolt ran would not be as outrageous.[/quote:1jezgra9]

So what? Bolt won world youths/world juniors, did Mo win those?

Bolt will win world champs this year.
Add commonwealth on top.
Massive world records.. come on man.. 19.30 into a headwind vs. .... 19.9?

Sure I agree Mo's 2001 run would have been very fast, but If you want to argue the injury/decceleration = faster time, put whatever time you think he would have ran vs. 9.63 (as splits prove bolt would have done that). And dont forget the altitude in edmonton.

I dont recall Mo being on top in 2002-2003 and he came out with a bronze, not a gold in 04.

And what Bolt ran on friday not being a "good race" would have equalled Mo's personal best which he only ran once (sub 9.8) and twice if you want to include the would-have-been from edmonton.

Plus lets not forget we're not comparing 40 years ago till now, put Tyson or Bolt from today into any of Mo's championship wins and none would have ever happened.

[JRM]

And what Bolt ran on friday not being a "good race" would have equalled Mo's personal best which he only ran once (sub 9.8) and twice if you want to include the would-have-been from edmonton.

Plus lets not forget we're not comparing 40 years ago till now, put Tyson or Bolt from today into any of Mo's championship wins and none would have ever happened.

You're losing yourself in the here-and-now, and not willing to recognize the magnitude of performances past. This happens every decade. Young types tend to forget what certain times meant when they were clocked, or how certain athletes dominated at the time.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the times someone like Bolt is running would have been WRs a decade before. Same as in 1999 -- Greene's times would have put the late 80s sprinters to shame. The difference is longevity.

Competitors for GOAT are Carl Lewis, Maurice Greene, and perhaps a few from decades before. Bolt's performances are superb -- but they lack repetition. That's not to say it won't happen, and judging from his races it's likely. But until they do, you can't give him the crown for his current resume.

[Speedfirst]

Competitors for GOAT are Carl Lewis, Maurice Greene, and perhaps a few from decades before. Bolt's performances are superb -- but they lack repetition. That's not to say it won't happen, and judging from his races it's likely. But until they do, you can't give him the crown for his current resume.

Watch yourself, you know you gotta proclaim Bolt as the GOAT. That's blasphemy and Bolt is the greatest thing since the airplane, let some of his fans tell it. I'm a fan, but let's keep things in perspective.

[track_expert]

And what Bolt ran on friday not being a "good race" would have equalled Mo's personal best which he only ran once (sub 9.8) and twice if you want to include the would-have-been from edmonton.

Plus lets not forget we're not comparing 40 years ago till now, put Tyson or Bolt from today into any of Mo's championship wins and none would have ever happened.

You're losing yourself in the here-and-now, and not willing to recognize the magnitude of performances past. This happens every decade. Young types tend to forget what certain times meant when they were clocked, or how certain athletes dominated at the time.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the times someone like Bolt is running would have been WRs a decade before. Same as in 1999 -- Greene's times would have put the late 80s sprinters to shame. The difference is longevity.

Competitors for GOAT are Carl Lewis, Maurice Greene, and perhaps a few from decades before. Bolt's performances are superb -- but they lack repetition. That's not to say it won't happen, and judging from his races it's likely. But until they do, you can't give him the crown for his current resume.

Greene trained with HSI/John Smith and ran on Mondo tracks, plus he was just a few years ago... performances from the past can be different due to training methods (research at the time), track surfaces, and so on, but these were very much the same from Mo's time and Bolt now thus it makes it VERY easy to compare the times, a 9.63 from Bolt with 0 wind is absolutely unbelievable vs. the 9.8s Mo ran.

You can argue the 80s because no Mondo tracks, etc. but would Lewis really have beaten Bolt had he ran now?

[Jerome Marrow]

[quote=track_expert][quote="Jerome Marrow":1cgcm8xq][quote="track_expert":1cgcm8xq][quote=Speedfirst]

What about the theory that it is predicted that in the future speed events will be dominated by people who are even more different to 'normal' people than our current elite sprinters are?

Aren't the current basketball players taller on average than players 50 years ago? Isn't the NBA dominated by people "who are even more different to 'normal' people"? Is anyone making a big deal about that?

Aren't the awareness of the importance of physical fitness, proper diet and nutrition and weight training all contributing factors to the fact that on average sprinters are bigger and heavier now than 50 years ago?

Sprinters aren't any taller though and the GOAT is still a guy who was 5'9". I am not even sure there is any different in body types except more muscularity which is, sadly, likely because of not only including weight training, but because of the other change that has been around that basically started about 50 years ago (AAS use).

The thing that is annoying about people freaking out about Bolt is that tall people have sprinted a looooooong time and they have not consistently performed better. Bolt is an exception, but there are plenty of people under 6' that kick the shit out of people over 6'. Mo, Gatlin, Tyson, BJ, TMont..... all under 6' and had no problem running extremely fast times.

Goat? Mo?

Mo is the GOOT.

Greatest of Old Times

One MEET....doesn't the GOAT make.

Still only one meet.[/quote:1cgcm8xq]

Put Mo in his prime against Bolt and see if you still think he's the GOAT [/quote:1cgcm8xq]

Bolt hasn't even won a World Championship yet. He won the Olympics--phenomenal. Insane world records--even better. He hasn't had the longevity to be considered a GOAT, at all. I should correct myself and say he hasn't had any longevity since he has only become talked about as one of the best of all time from one season, while Mo was at the top from '97-'04. Mo set world records in the 60m and 100m and won numerous titles. Hell, he won titles over a greater range than Bolt has (60m, 100m, and 200m)!

Give it a few more years and the GOAT talk can start. Hell, if Mo hadn't gotten hurt in Edmonton, the 9.69 that Bolt ran would not be as outrageous.[/quote:1cgcm8xq]

So what? Bolt won world youths/world juniors, did Mo win those?[/quote:1cgcm8xq] Both of which, when talking about the ranks of being the greatest of all time, are irrelevant. It would be like bringing up Mo's state titles. Both of those competitions are highly limited because of the ways people from various countries must go about qualifying for such. Unlike senior championships, many people do not have easy times getting to such meets (no funding), nor is everyone in the same situation (some people receiving significant governmental and federation support versus others who have a hard enough time getting flights covered). Wait, you're the track_expert, you should know about these things.

Bolt will win world champs this year.
Add commonwealth on top.
Massive world records.. come on man.. 19.30 into a headwind vs. .... 19.9?

2 hundredths faster than Michael Johnson, sweet. What's his 60m? Where is that world record? If you want to try to degrade the GOAT's performance, have something to back it up besides this nonsense.

Sure I agree Mo's 2001 run would have been very fast, but If you want to argue the injury/decceleration = faster time, put whatever time you think he would have ran vs. 9.63 (as splits prove bolt would have done that). And dont forget the altitude in edmonton.

The altitude in Edmonton is minimal and the effects at that sort of altitude are not clear--there were not wide scale personal bests for all and Mo's performance was the only one in the meet that was other worldly, so you can't really use that as a slight against him. Further, the 9.63 is not proven. 9.65 is the fastest you can say is for sure, based on splits from New York and other meets where he had a good start and ran through the line. Further, it isn't that much faster than what Mo would have run. The man had a catastrophic injury that took many months to heal. Further, he had a misstep during his acceleration (look at the video, since you are the track_expert) which may have been related to this.

I dont recall Mo being on top in 2002-2003 and he came out with a bronze, not a gold in 04.

I am talking about being among the top contenders in the world for the 100m. Bolt has not even been in the discussion of being a viable candidate to win a global title in any event until 2008. Even in the 200m in 2007 he was an underdog to get his silver medal and without Carter and Spearmon having injuries that year that hindered their prep and Dix not running at world's, it's not even clear if he was a lock for a medal. Even riddled with injuries, Mo has been among the top in the world during that time period.

And what Bolt ran on friday not being a "good race" would have equalled Mo's personal best which he only ran once (sub 9.8) and twice if you want to include the would-have-been from edmonton.

Great! Times come and go and in due time so will Bolt's times. What does not go is the longevity of achievements, titles, and the prolificness as a top athlete. Bolt has done it for a full season and is now doing it for his second, but he has a few years to go before he can be a GOAT. Plus, it is all about how far you are away from the rest of the competition. Bolt does not even have the world leading times this year in the 100m or 200m and you are trying to diss Mo's accomplishments? Puh-leaze.

Plus lets not forget we're not comparing 40 years ago till now, put Tyson or Bolt from today into any of Mo's championship wins and none would have ever happened.

lol now you have shown your idiocy and lack of knowledge about anything involved in elite sprinting except for the superficial.

[Jerome Marrow]

Greene trained with HSI/John Smith and ran on Mondo tracks, plus he was just a few years ago... performances from the past can be different due to training methods (research at the time), track surfaces, and so on, but these were very much the same from Mo's time and Bolt now thus it makes it VERY easy to compare the times, a 9.63 from Bolt with 0 wind is absolutely unbelievable vs. the 9.8s Mo ran.

You can argue the 80s because no Mondo tracks, etc. but would Lewis really have beaten Bolt had he ran now?

You are still missing the forest through the trees. There are many factors involved, some of which are obvious and others not, some things that are clear, some that aren't. Are Mondo tracks the only thing that is different from the 80s to today? Let me guess, Richard Thompson would be the GOAT if he was around in the 80s because he has gone 9.89, which was unheard of for back then? Spearmon and Dix as well...

Look at the comparison to the competition. When Mo was at his best, there was nobody in the same vicinity of him, for years. Nobody had a chance to beat him and I am not just talking about times, but also mentality. He took on all comers for years and continuously beat them without question. Gay was hurt for Beijing so there is only what-ifs for that and until Bolt competes for more years, nobody will knows what he will do long term. How can a guy who has not even been the greatest 100m sprinter in his country for much more than a year be the greatest of all time? A guy who is not even undefeated at his "peak" and does not have the world leading times? Again, I think Bolt can be and think he eventually will be the GOAT, but he isn't there yet and has years to come. Only people with no experience would make the statements you are making.

And if it was all about what should happen or could happen, Steve Lewis would be the GOAT of the 400m and nobody would ever approach Bob Hayes, EVER, for any short sprints. Again though, it is about what you do and the longevity of such successes, not what could have been or what should be.

[track_expert]

[quote=Jerome Marrow][quote="track_expert":1p0qit5p][quote="Jerome Marrow":1p0qit5p][quote="track_expert":1p0qit5p][quote=Speedfirst]

What about the theory that it is predicted that in the future speed events will be dominated by people who are even more different to 'normal' people than our current elite sprinters are?

Aren't the current basketball players taller on average than players 50 years ago? Isn't the NBA dominated by people "who are even more different to 'normal' people"? Is anyone making a big deal about that?

Aren't the awareness of the importance of physical fitness, proper diet and nutrition and weight training all contributing factors to the fact that on average sprinters are bigger and heavier now than 50 years ago?

Sprinters aren't any taller though and the GOAT is still a guy who was 5'9". I am not even sure there is any different in body types except more muscularity which is, sadly, likely because of not only including weight training, but because of the other change that has been around that basically started about 50 years ago (AAS use).

The thing that is annoying about people freaking out about Bolt is that tall people have sprinted a looooooong time and they have not consistently performed better. Bolt is an exception, but there are plenty of people under 6' that kick the shit out of people over 6'. Mo, Gatlin, Tyson, BJ, TMont..... all under 6' and had no problem running extremely fast times.

Goat? Mo?

Mo is the GOOT.

Greatest of Old Times

One MEET....doesn't the GOAT make.

Still only one meet.[/quote:1p0qit5p]

Put Mo in his prime against Bolt and see if you still think he's the GOAT [/quote:1p0qit5p]

Bolt hasn't even won a World Championship yet. He won the Olympics--phenomenal. Insane world records--even better. He hasn't had the longevity to be considered a GOAT, at all. I should correct myself and say he hasn't had any longevity since he has only become talked about as one of the best of all time from one season, while Mo was at the top from '97-'04. Mo set world records in the 60m and 100m and won numerous titles. Hell, he won titles over a greater range than Bolt has (60m, 100m, and 200m)!

Give it a few more years and the GOAT talk can start. Hell, if Mo hadn't gotten hurt in Edmonton, the 9.69 that Bolt ran would not be as outrageous.[/quote:1p0qit5p]

So what? Bolt won world youths/world juniors, did Mo win those?[/quote:1p0qit5p] Both of which, when talking about the ranks of being the greatest of all time, are irrelevant. It would be like bringing up Mo's state titles. Both of those competitions are highly limited because of the ways people from various countries must go about qualifying for such. Unlike senior championships, many people do not have easy times getting to such meets (no funding), nor is everyone in the same situation (some people receiving significant governmental and federation support versus others who have a hard enough time getting flights covered). Wait, you're the track_expert, you should know about these things.

Bolt will win world champs this year.
Add commonwealth on top.
Massive world records.. come on man.. 19.30 into a headwind vs. .... 19.9?

2 hundredths faster than Michael Johnson, sweet. What's his 60m? Where is that world record? If you want to try to degrade the GOAT's performance, have something to back it up besides this nonsense.

Sure I agree Mo's 2001 run would have been very fast, but If you want to argue the injury/decceleration = faster time, put whatever time you think he would have ran vs. 9.63 (as splits prove bolt would have done that). And dont forget the altitude in edmonton.

The altitude in Edmonton is minimal and the effects at that sort of altitude are not clear--there were not wide scale personal bests for all and Mo's performance was the only one in the meet that was other worldly, so you can't really use that as a slight against him. Further, the 9.63 is not proven. 9.65 is the fastest you can say is for sure, based on splits from New York and other meets where he had a good start and ran through the line. Further, it isn't that much faster than what Mo would have run. The man had a catastrophic injury that took many months to heal. Further, he had a misstep during his acceleration (look at the video, since you are the track_expert) which may have been related to this.

I dont recall Mo being on top in 2002-2003 and he came out with a bronze, not a gold in 04.

I am talking about being among the top contenders in the world for the 100m. Bolt has not even been in the discussion of being a viable candidate to win a global title in any event until 2008. Even in the 200m in 2007 he was an underdog to get his silver medal and without Carter and Spearmon having injuries that year that hindered their prep and Dix not running at world's, it's not even clear if he was a lock for a medal. Even riddled with injuries, Mo has been among the top in the world during that time period.

And what Bolt ran on friday not being a "good race" would have equalled Mo's personal best which he only ran once (sub 9.8) and twice if you want to include the would-have-been from edmonton.

Great! Times come and go and in due time so will Bolt's times. What does not go is the longevity of achievements, titles, and the prolificness as a top athlete. Bolt has done it for a full season and is now doing it for his second, but he has a few years to go before he can be a GOAT. Plus, it is all about how far you are away from the rest of the competition. Bolt does not even have the world leading times this year in the 100m or 200m and you are trying to diss Mo's accomplishments? Puh-leaze.

Plus lets not forget we're not comparing 40 years ago till now, put Tyson or Bolt from today into any of Mo's championship wins and none would have ever happened.

lol now you have shown your idiocy and lack of knowledge about anything involved in elite sprinting except for the superficial.[/quote:1p0qit5p]

If you want to push down Mo's down, we can push down the 9.65 to 9.63 as well. An altitude like that has 0.02-0.03 effect.

And Mo ran that fast ONCE vs. how many 9.7s for Bolt in BAD conditions?
Bolt is 0.01/0.02 off world leading times, considering you are actually saying Gays ahead of him and considering conditions, you're a true idiot.

And where does 19.30 vs. 19.32 of michael johnson come in? We're talking about Bolt's 200 vs. Mo's 200.
And if anything Bolt's 200 was wayy better than johnson's considering... wind difference.. and greater race fatigue.

60m? So what? How about 400m too then?

And point about the world juniors/youths isnt neccesarily having won them, but the WAY he won them. There isnt a kid that fast in history who'd ever beat him from anywhere, so who really cares who he was racing?

[sprintblox]

If height provided a clear advantage in sprinting, we'd have already seen the ranks of the elite sprinters filled mostly with very tall athletes, like what happened in basketball and volleyball and high jumping and discus throwing. The advantage (if there was one), would have become apparent decades ago; it wouldn't take until the 21st century for the advantage to show a clear pattern.

Bolt is Bolt, an outlier, an exception, not a trend. After Bolt we'll go back to seeing top sprinters being in the 5'9 to 6'3 range like we did before. Just like Juantorena didn't create a trend of big tall 800m runners.

[Jerome Marrow]

If you want to push down Mo's down, we can push down the 9.65 to 9.63 as well. An altitude like that has 0.02-0.03 effect.

Puh-leaze. No clear evidence to prove this, which is why records set at altitude are still recognized as records, as opposed to wind assisted marks.

And Mo ran that fast ONCE vs. how many 9.7s for Bolt in BAD conditions?
Bolt is 0.01/0.02 off world leading times, considering you are actually saying Gays ahead of him and considering conditions, you're a true idiot.

Gay does have better SBs. I think Bolt is a better sprinter and will win, but Gay has run faster. Even with the conditions, he has run a faster 100m than Bolt. Bolt has a faster 200m, but not 100m. Multiple people ran against Gay and Bolt in a short time span and Gay put a significantly greater margin on the others (even if you account for reaction time and the like). Mo has many more sub 10s than Bolt, so it's a wash. Nobody is saying Mo has run faster than Bolt, but your claim that Bolt is the GOAT because of a single fucking season is stupid, near sighted, and shows your lack of insight.

And where does 19.30 vs. 19.32 of michael johnson come in? We're talking about Bolt's 200 vs. Mo's 200.
And if anything Bolt's 200 was wayy better than johnson's considering... wind difference.. and greater race fatigue.

How did he have greater race fatigue than Johnson? Johnson pulled his hammy and ran the 400 before the 200. Maybe you missed that one. Oh and the 200 is a race that has a curve and a straight in case you didn't notice. They only take a wind reading from the straight in the 2nd half of the race. If you want to talk about imperfection when trying to calculate these stupid ass basic times, there you go.

60m? So what? How about 400m too then?

Bolt hasn't gone sub 45. Mo set a WR (running it twice) and has a world title. The accomplishments are not really comparable between those events.

And point about the world juniors/youths isnt neccesarily having won them, but the WAY he won them. There isnt a kid that fast in history who'd ever beat him from anywhere, so who really cares who he was racing?

We are talking about senior sprinters in the first place so the fact somebody matured earlier than everyone else and was fortunate to be in a good situation that MOST elite sprinters in the rest of the world never had available to them does not really make this topical when discussing the GOAT for male sprints at the senior level.

[track_expert]

[quote=Jerome Marrow]

If you want to push down Mo's down, we can push down the 9.65 to 9.63 as well. An altitude like that has 0.02-0.03 effect.

Puh-leaze. No clear evidence to prove this, which is why records set at altitude are still recognized as records, as opposed to wind assisted marks.

And Mo ran that fast ONCE vs. how many 9.7s for Bolt in BAD conditions?
Bolt is 0.01/0.02 off world leading times, considering you are actually saying Gays ahead of him and considering conditions, you're a true idiot.

Gay does have better SBs. I think Bolt is a better sprinter and will win, but Gay has run faster. Even with the conditions, he has run a faster 100m than Bolt. Bolt has a faster 200m, but not 100m. Multiple people ran against Gay and Bolt in a short time span and Gay put a significantly greater margin on the others (even if you account for reaction time and the like). Mo has many more sub 10s than Bolt, so it's a wash. Nobody is saying Mo has run faster than Bolt, but your claim that Bolt is the GOAT because of a single fucking season is stupid, near sighted, and shows your lack of insight.

And where does 19.30 vs. 19.32 of michael johnson come in? We're talking about Bolt's 200 vs. Mo's 200.
And if anything Bolt's 200 was wayy better than johnson's considering... wind difference.. and greater race fatigue.

How did he have greater race fatigue than Johnson? Johnson pulled his hammy and ran the 400 before the 200. Maybe you missed that one. Oh and the 200 is a race that has a curve and a straight in case you didn't notice. They only take a wind reading from the straight in the 2nd half of the race. If you want to talk about imperfection when trying to calculate these stupid ass basic times, there you go.

60m? So what? How about 400m too then?

Bolt hasn't gone sub 45. Mo set a WR (running it twice) and has a world title. The accomplishments are not really comparable between those events.

And point about the world juniors/youths isnt neccesarily having won them, but the WAY he won them. There isnt a kid that fast in history who'd ever beat him from anywhere, so who really cares who he was racing?

We are talking about senior sprinters in the first place so the fact somebody matured earlier than everyone else and was fortunate to be in a good situation that MOST elite sprinters in the rest of the world never had available to them does not really make this topical when discussing the GOAT for male sprints at the senior level.[/quote:2ja54ty1]

Saying Gay has run a faster 100m is very idiotic, Rome has a faster track than Paris, the wind difference AND a wet track/raining is very easy to make a difference. And about your gap on everyone I hope you're not including Blake... Blake didnt run faster in Paris if you look at reaction times... and Bailey could have simply been a bit faster? Does it ever occur to you some guys actually MAKE some improvements in speed? And dont ride a plateau all season and career?

Whats your point about the wind? Johnson got a little help, Bolt had a headwind, are you going to argue and say when the reading is -0.9, that Bolt really had a tailwind? They are inaccurate but Ill take my chances and say a negative reading is going to definitely mean there is a headwind present.

Ya and so what? Donovan still has like the 50m record... make Powell have a indoor peak and Mo's 60m record/s are going into the garbage. How many consistent sub 10 runners run the 60 in peak form anyway? Best you saw this year was Chambers and... 10.x or 10.1x 100m times now? Take your 60m crap elsewhere.

And it doesnt matter whether or not other sprinters had the ability to go to world youths/juniors, they wouldnt go as fast as Bolt! 20.xx and 19.9x at 15-17 years old is absolutely phenomenal and Mo would lose to a 17 year old Bolt in the 200 on most days.

[Speedfirst]

Real simple track _expert..Bolt isn't the GOAT, no matter what you offer as reasons, he ain't done enough, point blank.

That's like saying Lebron is the GOAT in baskeball or Pujols the GOAT in baseball, great as they are in their own rights, just not the GOAT. Again this includes Bolt, quit while you're behind.

[williamwindhamjr]

Shaq would be able to beat Bolt :lol:

[EZSum]

Real simple track _expert..Bolt isn't the GOAT, no matter what you offer as reasons, he ain't done enough, point blank.

That's like saying Lebron is the GOAT in baskeball or Pujols the GOAT in baseball, great as they are in their own rights, just not the GOAT. Again this includes Bolt, quit while you're behind.

Lots of elderly guys think Bob Hayes is the GOAT. As long as you remember to tear them a new one as well go right ahead.

[Jerome Marrow]

Saying Gay has run a faster 100m is very idiotic, Rome has a faster track than Paris, the wind difference AND a wet track/raining is very easy to make a difference. And about your gap on everyone I hope you're not including Blake... Blake didnt run faster in Paris if you look at reaction times... and Bailey could have simply been a bit faster? Does it ever occur to you some guys actually MAKE some improvements in speed? And dont ride a plateau all season and career?

Thompson ran faster. Bailey ran faster. Blake did run faster (even factoring in reaction time, plus reaction time include the time it take you to apply pressure to the blocks, ho-hum). 3 different guys, one of whom has a completely different training program and racing history than the other two. All of these guys ran faster in Paris than in Rome, but Paris has a slow track? You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You have no proof about the "slowness" of the Paris track--a track that has had a world record set on it and a number of other personal bests from athletes.

Whats your point about the wind? Johnson got a little help, Bolt had a headwind, are you going to argue and say when the reading is -0.9, that Bolt really had a tailwind? They are inaccurate but Ill take my chances and say a negative reading is going to definitely mean there is a headwind present.

Not particularly.

Ya and so what? Donovan still has like the 50m record... make Powell have a indoor peak and Mo's 60m record/s are going into the garbage. How many consistent sub 10 runners run the 60 in peak form anyway? Best you saw this year was Chambers and... 10.x or 10.1x 100m times now? Take your 60m crap elsewhere.

What is Powell's fastest 100m time before March? Wait, he's never broken 10 and 6.39 is sub 9.8 pace. That is going to take on pretty damn big "peak" to drop nearly 2 tenths of a second.

The 50m is hardly ever run, so not worth discussing--I don't think the IAAF even ratifies records at that distance (hell, his coach said it was a false start). The 60m is the most contested indoor race and is contested at world championships. Mo is the first and only man under 6.4 and he did it twice. Look at the top lists for the event--the majority of the marks are from him and he didn't "peak" for it.

And what is with the Chambers comment? That shows that again you do not know a thing about sprint training. Go back to the Charlie Francis board and copy some things he has said because anything you say of your own makes no fucking sense. Look at the splits Chambers has had in his 100m race--not a single race has he gone sub 6.5 through 60m. If he does that, he is easily under 10 seconds, but he hasn't. Nice try with the criticism though.

And it doesnt matter whether or not other sprinters had the ability to go to world youths/juniors, they wouldnt go as fast as Bolt! 20.xx and 19.9x at 15-17 years old is absolutely phenomenal and Mo would lose to a 17 year old Bolt in the 200 on most days.

What was Bolt's 2nd fastest 200m at the time? Yeah, that's what I thought. His sub 20 was phenomenal, but not even close to a typical performance from him. Beyond that, Mo rarely even contested the race.

The fact you are trying to use junior marks is worthy of consideration when discussing the GOAT (when none of Bolt's junior marks have relevance at the greatest of all time levels) is laughable.