Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    Re: Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

    Originally posted by Marlow
    I seem to remember a guy in 1964 who had LOTS of side-to-side action . . . even had a gallop in his stride . . . a very inelegant looking runner . . . his name was Bob something.

    I remember another guy, injury-prone, probably because he ran so dog-gone UPRIGHT, a bio-mechanical nightmare. Micheal somebody.

    Then then was this Czech distance guy, in the 50s, what a hot mess he was! All hunched over, constantly in pain, lots of obviously wasted motion. Can't remember his name at all, started with a Z maybe?

    Oh, and this American marathoner in the 80s, might even be a coach now, absolutely SHUFFLED when he ran . . . :roll:
    Nice, Marlow...gotcha.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

      Originally posted by zidan
      Originally posted by bignate88
      Originally posted by ZELLGADISS
      Umm in my opinion because Bolt is impossible defeat him if he is in good shape(although he was "only" at 90-95%),because Blake is a great level and because Gatlin was incredible this year, like in his best years...(included doping)
      If in adittion Gay was "only" at 90-95% is the difference.
      A little bit better he could defeat to Gatlin, although i see very hard to defeat to Blake.
      And hardly Gay with many injuries in the last years will can to get to be at 100%.

      Well if he is better the next year and at 95% minimum, i see him bronze medal after of Bolt and Blake :wink:
      At this point, I don't see how Gay couldn't AT LEAST match and/or defeat Blake if he were to gain full fitness again(as far as the 100m goes). Blake is not that much beyond Gay, that all of a sudden he's so untouchable. (I mean, I don't even buy into the whole thing about "Bolt being in another stratosphere".) IMO, Tyson Gay at 100% is a true 9.6 runner. But taking into account his oft-injured career, the evidence of that is yet to be seen and can only be conjecture at best. Nonetheless, I wouldn't be surprised if his best season(s) were in the year(s) to come
      Realy? If you dont think Bolt is in a different stratosphere, then maybe you need to be in a different Hemispere. Tyson at 9.69 was full tilt with max wind. Bolt at 9.69 galivanting meters out with 0wind....Huh and in that 9.58 was looking around for Gay too....Err and 9.63, not being at 100% looks like 9.5 territory to me.
      ur funny..... But I'm not down with the hype. The 9.69 "coasting at the end cost him 0.04-0.05 at most. And his 9.58 despite his looking around, was run all out, and maybe lost a hundredth or 2 at most(if he lost anything at all) Tyson has NEVER had the fitness of Bolt from 2008 until now, and yet still managed to run 9.69 and 9.71.(Bolt with his injuries few and far in btwn, has maintained considerably better fitness than Gay has in that time frame)
      Off a limited season this year, Blake and Gatlin BARELY beat him in the Olympic 100 final. I may be from another hemisphere, but that shows me just how talented a sprinter he is( Dare I say as talented as Bolt). Like I said, if he can maintain fitness and build on what he has done this year, he could still surprise us even at 30 something

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

        I would like to thank many of the posters on this thread, and a number of these are quite new here, at least in terms of number of posts.

        I think that the comment about Blake and Gay (Gay can match him...) is basically correct,.... except that Blake will not be static and, as the youngest of the top sprinters has the best chance for further gains (aside from recovery gains, which can be pretty significant, but those gains are what brings Gay up from where he is to where Blake is now.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

          Originally posted by 26mi235
          I would like to thank many of the posters on this thread, and a number of these are quite new here, at least in terms of number of posts.

          I think that the comment about Blake and Gay (Gay can match him...) is basically correct,.... except that Blake will not be static and, as the youngest of the top sprinters has the best chance for further gains (aside from recovery gains, which can be pretty significant, but those gains are what brings Gay up from where he is to where Blake is now.
          If we were to see the full extent of Tyson's recovery gains, Blake even in his steady progression would have a difficult time beating him.( And I also think it would be apparent why I say Bolt being in a different stratosphere is simply hype)

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

            Originally posted by bignate88
            Originally posted by ZELLGADISS
            Umm in my opinion because Bolt is impossible defeat him if he is in good shape(although he was "only" at 90-95%),because Blake is a great level and because Gatlin was incredible this year, like in his best years...(included doping)
            If in adittion Gay was "only" at 90-95% is the difference.
            A little bit better he could defeat to Gatlin, although i see very hard to defeat to Blake.
            And hardly Gay with many injuries in the last years will can to get to be at 100%.

            Well if he is better the next year and at 95% minimum, i see him bronze medal after of Bolt and Blake :wink:
            At this point, I don't see how Gay couldn't AT LEAST match and/or defeat Blake if he were to gain full fitness again(as far as the 100m goes). Blake is not that much beyond Gay, that all of a sudden he's so untouchable. (I mean, I don't even buy into the whole thing about "Bolt being in another stratosphere".) IMO, Tyson Gay at 100% is a true 9.6 runner. But taking into account his oft-injured career, the evidence of that is yet to be seen and can only be conjecture at best. Nonetheless, I wouldn't be surprised if his best season(s) were in the year(s) to come
            Gay at 100 percent ran 9.69 with a +2.0 wind. Not my definition of a true 9.6 runner. Gay at 100 percent is faster than Blake though.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

              The contention was that Gay was not 100% when he ran the 9.69/2.0.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

                I admire and respect Gay, but the Gay that ran in the Olympics was not the same Gay at his peak. He tried hard, but he is not moving the same.

                Blake is in a completely different league than Gay right now. That final relay leg by Blake was astonishing.
                "Who's Kidding Who?"

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

                  Originally posted by mrbowie
                  I admire and respect Gay, but the Gay that ran in the Olympics was not the same Gay at his peak. He tried hard, but he is not moving the same.

                  Blake is in a completely different league than Gay right now. That final relay leg by Blake was astonishing.
                  Now that's definitely an exaggeration. Blake is NOT completely in a different league than Gay simply because Gay was purportedly "destroyed" by Blake on that leg. In better shape yes, in a different league, no. The 100m final is your best measuring stick (a final in which Blake edged him by just .05) All things being equal, they are pretty much even(as far the 100m goes I can safely say)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

                    Blake gained minimally on Gay on the leg with two elements to support that. First, the apparent gain is due (at least primarily) to the 3+meters differential in the length of the lane around the curve. Second, Bolt pulled away from Bailey by a substantial margin, and yet the Jamaicans won by only 0.20. For Blake to have massively beaten Gay, the first two legs would need to have been several tenths of a second slower and all accounts having them run pretty even and that is consistent with where Gay and Blake got the batons.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

                      Originally posted by 26mi235
                      Blake gained minimally on Gay on the leg with two elements to support that. First, the apparent gain is due (at least primarily) to the 3+meters differential in the length of the lane around the curve. Second, Bolt pulled away from Bailey by a substantial margin, and yet the Jamaicans won by only 0.20. For Blake to have massively beaten Gay, the first two legs would need to have been several tenths of a second slower and all accounts having them run pretty even and that is consistent with where Gay and Blake got the batons.
                      Yeah that's why it's good to see the race from different angles and to have official splits. Otherwise, the parallax will have us seeing things that aren't the case

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

                        It is very simple why Gay failed to medal in London.

                        He had two Jamaicans and an American that were faster than him.

                        I can't wait for the post Olympic matchups that will further reinforce this. I believe Tyson's days of being #2 behind Bolt are over.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

                          Originally posted by tracknut2012
                          It is very simple why Gay failed to medal in London.

                          He had two Jamaicans and an American that were faster than him.

                          I can't wait for the post Olympic matchups that will further reinforce this. I believe Tyson's days of being #2 behind Bolt are over.
                          You're absolutely right, and they also had a complete season of training behind em. Something we can't readily say about Gay this year
                          And those post Olympics matchups you speak of may very well prove you right, but may very well prove you wrong. I think a 2013 season would be a fairer and better litmus test however.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

                            Back in 2009 when Gay and Powell were constantly racing eachother pre Berlin, there are a couple of head on shots of them showing Powell having the "speed skater" start and Gay with a more straight, linear drive phase.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

                              Originally posted by tracknut2012
                              It is very simple why Gay failed to medal in London.

                              He had two Jamaicans and an American that were faster than him.
                              It is even more simple than that.

                              The man that beat him by 0.01s for third placed leaned forward while Gay leaned backward.

                              http://www.digitaljournal.com/img/8/7/3 ... n-Bolt.jpg
                              Regards,
                              toyracer

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

                                Originally posted by toyracer
                                Originally posted by tracknut2012
                                It is very simple why Gay failed to medal in London.

                                He had two Jamaicans and an American that were faster than him.
                                It is even more simple than that.

                                The man that beat him by 0.01s for third placed leaned forward while Gay leaned backward.

                                http://www.digitaljournal.com/img/8/7/3 ... n-Bolt.jpg
                                Based on the Tyson's position, even if he leaned, Gatlin would still have gotten bronze based on the torso.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X