Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Danny EVERETT versus Quincy WATTS...

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Danny EVERETT versus Quincy WATTS...

    If not injured, would Danny EVERETT have had
    the capacity to beat Quincy WATTS at the 1992
    Barcelona Olympic Games.
    I think that year, they were both in the shape
    of their lives.
    At the 1992 US Trials, Danny EVERETT won in
    43"81 under a terrible pressure (H.B REYNOLDS
    case) and exhausting weather conditions, which
    is making this performance exceptional.
    Of course we cannot re-write history, but I am
    asking:
    What would have happened, then?

  • #2
    Re: Danny EVERETT versus Quincy WATTS...

    In 1992, Quincy Watts built himself to a peak perfectly for Barcelona. His performances there in the SF and then the final were "Michael Johnsonesque." Everett would not/would not have beaten him IMHO. No 1/4 miler since then except for MJ has been even close to where QW was at Barcelona. He looked capable of 43 flat in Barcelona if that's what it would have taken to win. Again, IMHO.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Danny EVERETT versus Quincy WATTS...

      I agree with hjsteve. On a slight tangent, the support Butch Reynolds received by the whole stadium in New Orleans gave you chills down your back. They had to reschedule one round (I forgot which one) because of the Butch/IAAF affair for the off day and that stadium just about filled up. It was great.
      "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
      by Thomas Henry Huxley

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Danny EVERETT versus Quincy WATTS...

        ..

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Danny EVERETT versus Quincy WATTS...

          Watts without a doubt. I think he's one of the most magnificent runners I've ever seen. One of the great mysteries to me is why he and Kevin Young disappeared so quickly after setting fantastic marks. At the time I thought QW was capable of going under 43secs. I saw him training again at UCLA about 4 years ago but I don't think he ever raced.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Danny EVERETT versus Quincy WATTS...

            I believe Danny EVERETT was potentially a
            sub-43"50 in 1992.
            He was a magnificient 200/400m sprinter too.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Danny EVERETT versus Quincy WATTS...

              >Watts without a doubt. I think he's one of the most magnificent runners I've
              >ever seen. One of the great mysteries to me is why he and Kevin Young
              >disappeared so quickly after setting fantastic marks. >>

              >Watts without a doubt. I think he's one of the most magnificent runners I've
              >ever seen. One of the great mysteries to me is why he and Kevin Young
              >disappeared so quickly after setting fantastic marks.>>

              I think this is largely a myth. Each had careers--in terms of number of appearance in the World Rankings--that put them markedly above average. To stay healthy/motivated longer than they did often reflects the fact that their fans have more desire left than they do after winning the big one and expect too much.

              To be specific, neither just fell off the planet after winning in '92. Watts ranked two more years (a No. 4 and a No. 7) and Young was No. 1 again in '93 before falling way. But Young had first Ranked back in '86; few in the event ever had streaks longer than that. IMHO, if there's anything "mysterious" about Young, it's that he even came back to compete in '93 after winning in Barcelona after such a long career.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Danny EVERETT versus Quincy WATTS...

                Forget Danny & Quincy, I'd go with (a 400m only MJ & (non-distracted) Butch in 1992 over both!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Danny EVERETT versus Quincy WATTS...

                  I would like to see what kind of race we would have if you took Watts, Everett, Reynolds, and MJ all in their prime and had them race eachother. When MJ was running his consistant 43's in the mid-late 90's he was all alone. If MJ had someone to push him I think he would have definitely gone sub 43, and the other 3 may have reached very 43 if not sub 43 in the process.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Danny EVERETT versus Quincy WATTS...

                    One thing you need to remember is that unlike any other event in the 400 (and the 200, and the 400H) is that it's tough to predict what would happen without knowing the lane draw. When you're talking about four guys, they're then spread (assuming they get the 4 best lanes) from 3 through 6. Who can key off whom is going to play a big part.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Danny EVERETT versus Quincy WATTS...

                      Between Watts and Everett, Quincy seemed to be easily the quicker sprinter and was so strong phycically that he has to get the nod. Bump the race up to 800 meters and I'd bet the farm on Everett, but at 400 meters, Danny could have chased Watts (in his best form) to a very very fast time but couldn't have quite caught up with him.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Danny EVERETT versus Quincy WATTS...

                        jhc68,
                        I think you make a confusion with Mark EVERETT...
                        To my mind Danny's top 20"08 clearly show that
                        he was a faster sprinter than Quincy WATTS.
                        I still believe (I am curious to know his
                        coach's opinion) he had the potential to run
                        a sub-43"50 in 1992.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Danny EVERETT versus Quincy WATTS...

                          I'm not convinced Danny would have beaten Quincy in Barcelona. Quincy's semifinal race was one of the most beautiful runs I have ever seen in person. It looked to me that Watts could have run under 43 seconds had he forced the pace the last 50 meters, however there was no reason for him to run that hard in the semis. Q was so smooth, so strong, and so relaxed. 1992 was his year.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Danny EVERETT versus Quincy WATTS...

                            Anybody know how to reach Kevin Young... Last i hear he was in the NYC Area.. Anybody know if he's coaching track & field...

                            longtime friend
                            kg

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Danny EVERETT versus Quincy WATTS...

                              Great question! That's why I love this forum.

                              In my opinion, nobody could beat Quincy on that day. I think Buttermilk said it quite aptly, Q's run was one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen. We all know that MJ was a sprinting superstar but Quincy in his prime was the epitome of relaxed power and speed. The guy looked like he was doing easy strides on his way to 43.5!

                              As for Danny Everett...what a stud! It's kind of a shame he was in the same era as Butch, Steve Lewis and Quincy (to name but a few). Although I wasn't born yet, his position in that era reminds me of Larry James of '68. The wild thing about Danny was he was a slight guy. I saw him in Modesto one year and I swear he was a buck forty soaking wet.

                              One other interesting note: It would appear both Quincy and Mike Marsh peaked one race too early. Marsh's 200m semi was also a thing of beauty as he ran 19.73 chillin'. I read a paper on condition- adjusted 200m runs and his run ranks second only to MJ's world record. Were they both coached by John Smith?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X