Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kansas..?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • paulthefan
    replied
    Originally posted by Texas

    When Mo was winning he was beating Ato Boldon, Bruny Surin, Donovan Bailey,Frankie Fredericks. Now who was King Carl dealing with?
    Calvin Smith, Leroy Burell, Stanley Floyd, Alan Wells, Sam Graddy, Kirk Baptise, Ben Johnson, Harvey Glance, Mel Lattany...


    Carl beats Mo' s adversaries easily. Can Mo deal with Calvin and Burell, I dont know.

    Leave a comment:


  • Texas
    replied
    Originally posted by paulthefan
    Originally posted by Texas
    ]
    You're not getting it. You always start with level of competition. Y.......literally! Mo ran faster because he had to.....ok?
    you say : PRs/times are everything. Mo ran against better competition because they all had faster PRs.

    I say: PRs are to be considered much less important because so many things effecting them change with the era. Performance above ones peers is far more important than PRs. Carl dominiated.


    absit invidia
    Ever heard of....

    Francis Baldwin
    Doug Hawken
    Craig Wallace
    Earl Harris

    ....let me guess..nope! All ran a 9.2 back in the old yards days. Ever heard of WR holder Roscoe Cook a 9.3 guy? How about WR holder SamPerry who ran the indoor 60 in 5.9 while at Fordham? Do you think I think those mentioned were "great" sprinters? Come on man!

    When Mo was winning he was beating Ato Boldon, Bruny Surin, Donovan Bailey,Frankie Fredericks. Now who was King Carl dealing with?

    Work with me here...

    Scooter Reed is a 10.65 guy out of Redwood High in Montana. He has dominated the state meet for 4 years. He's being talked about as the greatest ever from Montana. He's never lost!

    Monroe Overton is a 10.45 guy out of Sealy High in Texas. He has never won state and just took third his senior year, his highest finish ever.

    Now you are recruiting tracksters for Arkansas. Who would interest you more Scooter or Monroe?

    Leave a comment:


  • paulthefan
    replied
    Mo was a great great sprinter, the best of a very good decade. He is in and always will be considered in the small pantheon of giants of the dash. I do not want to diminish his accomplishments by comparing them with Carl.


    Originally posted by Texas
    You're not getting it. You always start with level of competition. Y.......literally! Mo ran faster because he had to.....ok?
    you say : PRs/times are everything. Mo ran against better competition because they all had faster PRs. There is something circular here.

    I say: PRs are to be considered much less important because so many things effecting them change with the era. Performance above ones peers is more important than PRs. Carl dominiated.

    In short your entire argument gets back to one simple assumptions: The clock is the only factor.

    Perhaps we should just appreciated each of them as immensely talented highly disciplined men.

    absit invidia

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    Originally posted by paulthefan
    we have been over this so many times before that I nearly fall asleep reading your and Tex's response. For the 29th time, Carl born 15 years later and training in the mid-late 90s to 2004 would have weighed 200+ lbs ..
    that's very true

    but even if he weighed 300 pounds, how does it get rid of his shit start ?

    9.70 with a shit start still means you are technically flawed

    Leave a comment:


  • Texas
    replied
    Originally posted by paulthefan
    Originally posted by Texas
    No Carl Lewis wasn't a superior sprinter, where in the hell did you get that idea? Who holds the 60m record? Who ran those sub 9.80's? How many sub 9.86 guys did Lewis line up against? Mo ran faster vs better competition....you disagree?
    yes, Carl was superior. He dominated more convincingly for a longer duration. Nevertheless Mo was a giant, anyone that can capture Olympic gold and then come back 4 long years later and capture bronze is an absolute beast.
    You're not getting it. You always start with level of competition. Yes just like the BCS tries to do in football. It's all about who are you competing against. Mo was in against the better competition and that can't even be debated. So escape that fantasy world you're wandering around in and come up to speed....literally! Mo ran faster because he had to.....ok?

    Leave a comment:


  • Texas
    replied
    Originally posted by paulthefan
    Originally posted by Texas
    No Carl Lewis wasn't a superior sprinter, where in the hell did you get that idea? Who holds the 60m record? Who ran those sub 9.80's? How many sub 9.86 guys did Lewis line up against? Mo ran faster vs better competition....you disagree?
    yes, Carl was superior. He dominated more convincingly for a longer duration. Nevertheless Mo was a giant, anyone that can capture Olympic gold and then come back 4 long years later and capture bronze is an absolute beast.
    You're not getting it. You always start with level of competition. Yes just like the BCS tries to do in football. It's all about who are you competing against. Mo was in against the better competition and that can't even be debated. So escape that fantasy world you're wandering around in and come up tp speed....literally!

    Leave a comment:


  • paulthefan
    replied
    Originally posted by eldrick
    pauly

    that's the "rocky" argument
    ...

    that's akin to your "start" being too poor to be goat, no matter how fast your "finish"

    no matter how much better "tracks", "training" or "shoes", you're given now, you won't catch-up/ko every 210+ champ in 15 rounds - you were just lucky none existed during your reign - & vitali/lennox will still cremate you in 1 round
    we have been over this so many times before that I nearly fall asleep reading your and Tex's response. For the 29th time, Carl born 15 years later and training in the mid-late 90s to 2004 would have weighed 200+ lbs ..

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    pauly

    that's the "rocky" argument

    because he was unbeaten, lotta ko's, reigned for few years, yada

    bottom line is, his best fighting weight was 182

    that's akin to your "start" being too poor to be goat, no matter how fast your "finish"

    no matter how much better "tracks", "training" or "shoes", you're given now, you won't catch-up/ko every 210+ champ in 15 rounds - you were just lucky none existed during your reign - & vitali/lennox will still cremate you in 1 round

    Leave a comment:


  • paulthefan
    replied
    Originally posted by Texas
    No Carl Lewis wasn't a superior sprinter, where in the hell did you get that idea? Who holds the 60m record? Who ran those sub 9.80's? How many sub 9.86 guys did Lewis line up against? Mo ran faster vs better competition....you disagree?
    yes, Carl was superior. He dominated more convincingly for a longer duration. Nevertheless Mo was a giant, anyone that can capture Olympic gold and then come back 4 long years later and capture bronze is an absolute beast.

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    pauly

    i gotta go with tex

    King coud never be goat-100 - he had shit start

    to be goat, you'd better run the "perfect" 100

    mo ran "perfect" 100s - 6.40/3.40 splits ( '01 couda been 6.33.../3.33 = 9.66 - albeit bolt wouda run 9.60 with good RT + no 'boatin' )

    King was "perfect" last 40m goat - 6.46/3.40 at well past his peak ( maybe '82 - '87 )

    Leave a comment:


  • Texas
    replied
    Originally posted by paulthefan
    Originally posted by Texas

    I always say....compare times from 1900 and 1930. You'll find the 1930 times far superior. Now what big advantage did guys in the 30's have over those in 1900? Well?
    Not really far superior, but the training methods and track conditions were certainly much improved from the 1900s to the 1930s.

    King Carl was just a superior dash man, 100m included, relative to Mo Greene, and Mo Greene is in a very small circle of greats directly behind Carl.
    I doubt there were any differences at all and if there were they were few and small. People just get faster. We see it in the high schools. Kids breaking school records doing the same training and running on the same tracks the record setter was using.

    No Carl Lewis wasn't a superior sprinter, where in the hell did you get that idea? Who holds the 60m record? Who ran those sub 9.80's? How many sub 9.86 guys did Lewis line up against? Mo ran faster vs better competition....you disagree?

    Leave a comment:


  • paulthefan
    replied
    Originally posted by Texas

    I always say....compare times from 1900 and 1930. You'll find the 1930 times far superior. Now what big advantage did guys in the 30's have over those in 1900? Well?
    Not really far superior, but the training methods and track conditions were certainly much improved from the 1900s to the 1930s.

    King Carl was just a superior dash man, 100m included, relative to Mo Greene, and Mo Greene is in a very small circle of greats directly behind Carl.

    Leave a comment:


  • Texas
    replied
    Originally posted by paulthefan
    Originally posted by Texas
    Oh really? You might wanna tell all those football coachs that those 40's don't mean anything so why bother...ok? .....................
    Mo Greene was the faster sprinter, that's why he ran sooooooooooooo many faster races. Now you can play pretend if you like, I prefer reality. Mo had how many sub 9.85's? How many did Carl have? Oh yeah......none!
    Tex, come on now, don't get your panties in a twist, you know we have been over and over and over this for one hundred times.. you know exactly what I am getting at. Comparing a PR from 2000 with a PR from 1984 is like comparing a CPU clock time from 1984 with one from 2000.. ok it is not that bad... but methods, meds and millions have an impact.
    I always say....compare times from 1900 and 1930. You'll find the 1930 times far superior. Now what big advantage did guys in the 30's have over those in 1900? Well?

    Leave a comment:


  • paulthefan
    replied
    Originally posted by Texas
    Oh really? You might wanna tell all those football coachs that those 40's don't mean anything so why bother...ok? .....................
    Mo Greene was the faster sprinter, that's why he ran sooooooooooooo many faster races. Now you can play pretend if you like, I prefer reality. Mo had how many sub 9.85's? How many did Carl have? Oh yeah......none!
    Tex, come on now, don't get your panties in a twist, you know we have been over and over and over this for one hundred times.. my comments are no surprise to you, you know exactly what I am getting at. Comparing a PR from 2000 with a PR from 1984 is like comparing a CPU clock time from 1984 with one from 2000.. ok it is not that bad... but methods, meds and millions have an impact. Mo may well be the greatest native Kansan sprinter, just barely besting Baker but he is not the equal of King Carl. (Just one mans opinion, followed by a chorus of millions shouting Amen)

    Leave a comment:


  • Texas
    replied
    Originally posted by bambam
    Originally posted by Texas
    it's two most exciting running backs, all born in Kansas.
    Jim Brown wasn't born in Kansas. I consider being the greatest running back ever pretty exciting.
    Totally disagree.

    Jimmy Brown was not all that exciting, I know I saw him play many times. Yes he had some great runs but nothing like we saw coming from Sayers and Sanders. Brown knew he could run over people so he did. That wasn't Sayers/Sanders game. They made you miss and had far more speed and elusiveness than Brown. No not his power obviously. Don't get me wrong, Jim Brown was the greatest ever. He was the total package. He just wasn't the most exciting.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X