Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

[berkeley]

Re: Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

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

Hmm - I don't remember MJ being that injury prone by the standards of world class sprinters. If anything, the reverse. He pulled up during the ill-advised 150m match race with Bailey in 1997, and was not back to full strength by the WC that year - but still won comfortably in an uncharacteristically slow 44.3. In every other championship year of his long career, he pretty much came out firing on all cylinders, and proceeded to win the global title(s) in a landslide. Oh, he was sick in 1992, but that was before he really reached his zenith. Maybe I'm forgetting one or two injuries ?

On Gay, IIRC, he has always been a bit non-linear at the start. IMO, he got the best he possibly could out of himself in London (with the possible exception of the lack of a lean, which might have given him bronze). I think that's why his post-meet comments have been somewhat philosophical. He knows there's nothing more he could have done.

[Conor Dary]

Re: Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

The guy was undefeated in the 400 from 1988, in the Trials, until 1997 in Paris.

PS. The only times I ever saw MJ run the 400 in person.

[ATK]

Re: Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

Besides his 1992 sickness MJ was pretty much injury free from 1991 through 1996.

[j-a-m]

Re: Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

Besides his 1992 sickness MJ was pretty much injury free from 1991 through 1996.

Exactly; he was only injury prone in his first few years of college, not after that. In his book, MJ gives a lack of weight training as the reason, and talks about how he changed his training regimen prior to his senior season.

[toyracer]

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.

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.

I'm not so sure. The lean back was part of a slowing down process, which is definitely not characteristic of Gay. If he had given the last 5m his usual "eyeball out" effort I think he would have gotten Gatlin on the line. Unfortunately, he didn't and we will never know for sure.

[ATK]

Re: Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

In the Race you can actually see Gay dipped his head down at about 95m, so by the time the line came up he was already easying up which would explain him "leaning backwards".

In Berlin he did the same thing where he basically eased up the last 5m and "leaned backwards".

[Conor Dary]

Re: Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

In the Race you can actually see Gay dipped his head down at about 95m, so by the time the line came up he was already easying up which would explain him "leaning backwards".

In Berlin he did the same thing where he basically eased up the last 5m and "leaned backwards".

If you are accelerating you are going to lean forward. If you are decelerating you are going to lean backwards. That is physics.

[ATK]

Re: Why I think Gay failed to medal in London

In the Race you can actually see Gay dipped his head down at about 95m, so by the time the line came up he was already easying up which would explain him "leaning backwards".

In Berlin he did the same thing where he basically eased up the last 5m and "leaned backwards".

If you are accelerating you are going to lean forward. If you are decelerating you are going to lean backwards. That is physics.

Yea that's the point. It wasn't him not leaning which cost him a possible bronze, it was him easing up before the race was over.

Also I'm pretty sure everyone is decelerating at the end of the 100m.