Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

20.13..forever?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Texas
    So wrong on so many levels. I don't even know where to begin to tear all that silliness down. Speaking of grasping concepts give it a shot..ok? I'm talking HS? Or mentioned Mike Marsh? Dude you're losing it...ok? Now pay attention...
    clearly logical thinking is too difficult for you

    yo provide no explanation why in '95 with 43.39 he coud run only 19.79 not 19.32

    explain it to us all...

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Texas
      Now we have MJ challenging Donovan Bailey in the 100m because eldrick still can't understand common sense......hahaha!!!!!!!
      give us the odds of a 10.03s guy going to 9.6 the next year

      now give us the odds of a 19.32 guy being able to run 9.82 - 9.87

      we're waiting...

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by eldrick
        they made their relay squads, because the standard in their country was so crap that they coudn't find 4 class 400 guys & had to include a 200 guy - their top national guy was usually a derisory ~ 45.5 guy & next couple in 45.5 - 46.0 range - standard so poor that the 200 guy was best next 400 runner in their country !

        if those countries had 4 guys <45 at the time, none of the above wouda got a sniff of a chance of making the relay final
        Are you putting things in a time perspective? Carr anchored USA to a world record (3.00,7). The 400m winner, an American who was part of the long relay, ran 45,1 for gold (or far from the "derisory" range you mentioned). The 1960 champion, an American, won in 44,9.

        Comment


        • #79
          those 45.5 & next 2 at 45.5 - 46.0 alludes to jama/trini/italian relay squads on synthetic

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by eldrick
            Originally posted by Texas
            So wrong on so many levels. I don't even know where to begin to tear all that silliness down. Speaking of grasping concepts give it a shot..ok? I'm talking HS? Or mentioned Mike Marsh? Dude you're losing it...ok? Now pay attention...
            clearly logical thinking is too difficult for you

            yo provide no explanation why in '95 with 43.39 he coud run only 19.79 not 19.32

            explain it to us all...
            Logical thinking.......??????????????? That coming from somebody who thinks MJ could hang with Donovan Bailey and Bob Hayes could beat Henry Carr? What would you know about logical thinking?

            In 1996 MJ didn't even run the 100m, what he did run was...

            43.44
            43.66
            43.49

            Now tell me was it all those non existant 100m he didn't run or those sub 44.00's he did run?

            MJ always had superior "speed endurance" to everyone he raced. To play this 43.3/43.4 endurance is silly.

            Comment


            • #81
              you offer nothing

              i asked for logic based opinion not stats everyone is familiar with

              show me that you have ability to think & answer the questions :

              give us the odds of a 10.03s guy going to 9.6 the next year ?

              now give us the odds of a 19.32 guy being able to run 9.82 - 9.87 ?

              we're waiting...

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by eldrick
                you offer nothing

                i asked for logic based opinion not stats everyone is familiar with

                show me that you have ability to think & answer the questions :

                give us the odds of a 10.03s guy going to 9.6 the next year ?

                now give us the odds of a 19.32 guy being able to run 9.82 - 9.87 ?

                we're waiting...
                As long as you think MJ can deal with Bailey there is nothing logic about this conversation. Do you honestly believe that? You don't even know that Henry Carr ran a slew of faster times than Hayes 20.5. You have so much to learn. Yet here you are totally wrapped up in a bunch of gibberish that means absolutely nothing. Stop with all that silliness...sheesh! Henry Carr was the greatest 200m man of his era, he beats everyone in 64. MJ is the greatest 200/400 man ever, nobody deals with him in 96. Don't tell me Hayes is bearting Carr. Don't tell me the secret to MJ's success was his speed. Dude, you are so wrong it's ridiculous.

                Ok look, either start coming real and drop all that bull or say adios. You're talking like a rookie. I'm not going to play..."guess what he could run?"...with you..ok? I deal in reality and what we actually saw. When I wanna play in a fantasy world I have one of my fantasy relays. This is about what we actually saw....ok?

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: 20.13..forever?

                  Originally posted by TrackDaddy
                  Originally posted by Texas
                  Originally posted by Marlow
                  Originally posted by Texas
                  Will anyone ever break Roy Martin's HS 200m record? Will anyone break MJ's "American Record" 19.32? I 'm starting to have doubts.
                  Yes, and yes.
                  As more HSers approach 10.10, it will become more apparent that 20.13 is not sacrosanct.
                  If MJ and Bolt can do it, so can others.
                  Actually we haven't seen anything to give the impression that Martin's 20.13 is going down anytime soon. I also don't see anyone really close to breaking 19.32 as far as Americans go. Talking normal humanoids and not some 6-5 alien.

                  I don't look at 100m guys as much as I look at 400m guys who come down to the 200m as having the best shot at breaking 200m records. Martin had that 400 ability as we saw in those great 4x4 legs he ran. Obviously MJ could scoot a 400m. When Bolt ran his 19.30 what did we hear..."will he run the 4x4?" Now it's..."can he break the 400m record also?"
                  Actually MJ's 19.32 was a bit of an aberration even for him.

                  What was his career best prior to that race...19.6x or so?

                  So who's to say that someone else couldnt experience a Bob Beamon-esque type performance.

                  On the h.s. level as well.

                  The longer distances in the 200/400 actually allows for somewhat out of character performances, IMO, whereas in the 100m most athletes seem to hover around record breaking times before and after breaking them.
                  Texas, both you and eldrick quoted my post but didnt say anything to refute my position which actually adresses and answers the thread question (unlike the opposing diatribes that you both are currently immersed in).

                  Is it that hard to just say...

                  "You're right, TrackDaddy."

                  I mean eldrick struggled to say it in the Wariner thread (although it was again quite obvious) but I'm just saying. :lol:
                  The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: 20.13..forever?

                    Originally posted by TrackDaddy
                    Originally posted by TrackDaddy
                    Originally posted by Texas
                    Originally posted by Marlow
                    Originally posted by Texas
                    Will anyone ever break Roy Martin's HS 200m record? Will anyone break MJ's "American Record" 19.32? I 'm starting to have doubts.
                    Yes, and yes.
                    As more HSers approach 10.10, it will become more apparent that 20.13 is not sacrosanct.
                    If MJ and Bolt can do it, so can others.
                    Actually we haven't seen anything to give the impression that Martin's 20.13 is going down anytime soon. I also don't see anyone really close to breaking 19.32 as far as Americans go. Talking normal humanoids and not some 6-5 alien.

                    I don't look at 100m guys as much as I look at 400m guys who come down to the 200m as having the best shot at breaking 200m records. Martin had that 400 ability as we saw in those great 4x4 legs he ran. Obviously MJ could scoot a 400m. When Bolt ran his 19.30 what did we hear..."will he run the 4x4?" Now it's..."can he break the 400m record also?"
                    Actually MJ's 19.32 was a bit of an aberration even for him.

                    What was his career best prior to that race...19.6x or so?

                    So who's to say that someone else couldnt experience a Bob Beamon-esque type performance.

                    On the h.s. level as well.

                    The longer distances in the 200/400 actually allows for somewhat out of character performances, IMO, whereas in the 100m most athletes seem to hover around record breaking times before and after breaking them.
                    Texas, both you and eldrick quoted my post but didnt say anything to refute my position which actually adresses and answers the thread question (unlike the opposing diatribes that you both are currently immersed in).

                    Is it that hard to just say...

                    "You're right, TrackDaddy."

                    I mean eldrick struggled to say it in the Wariner thread (although it was again quite obvious) but I'm just saying. :lol:
                    I'm having a hard time calling you...TrackDaddy :lol: How old are you?

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: 20.13..forever?

                      [quote=Texas]
                      Originally posted by TrackDaddy
                      Originally posted by TrackDaddy
                      Originally posted by Texas
                      Originally posted by Marlow
                      Originally posted by "Texas":3d38gs6p
                      Will anyone ever break Roy Martin's HS 200m record? Will anyone break MJ's "American Record" 19.32? I 'm starting to have doubts.
                      Yes, and yes.
                      As more HSers approach 10.10, it will become more apparent that 20.13 is not sacrosanct.
                      If MJ and Bolt can do it, so can others.
                      Actually we haven't seen anything to give the impression that Martin's 20.13 is going down anytime soon. I also don't see anyone really close to breaking 19.32 as far as Americans go. Talking normal humanoids and not some 6-5 alien.

                      I don't look at 100m guys as much as I look at 400m guys who come down to the 200m as having the best shot at breaking 200m records. Martin had that 400 ability as we saw in those great 4x4 legs he ran. Obviously MJ could scoot a 400m. When Bolt ran his 19.30 what did we hear..."will he run the 4x4?" Now it's..."can he break the 400m record also?"
                      Actually MJ's 19.32 was a bit of an aberration even for him.

                      What was his career best prior to that race...19.6x or so?

                      So who's to say that someone else couldnt experience a Bob Beamon-esque type performance.

                      On the h.s. level as well.

                      The longer distances in the 200/400 actually allows for somewhat out of character performances, IMO, whereas in the 100m most athletes seem to hover around record breaking times before and after breaking them.
                      Texas, both you and eldrick quoted my post but didnt say anything to refute my position which actually adresses and answers the thread question (unlike the opposing diatribes that you both are currently immersed in).

                      Is it that hard to just say...

                      "You're right, TrackDaddy."

                      I mean eldrick struggled to say it in the Wariner thread (although it was again quite obvious) but I'm just saying. :lol:
                      I'm having a hard time calling you...TrackDaddy :lol: How old are you?[/quote:3d38gs6p]

                      :lol:

                      I answer to just 'Daddy' too.

                      I'm 46.
                      The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Texas
                        As long as you think MJ can deal with Bailey there is nothing logic about this converstion...
                        i already quoted hayes ran 20.5wr in '63

                        there was no need to mention carr beating those because he didn't do 'till after hayes tied the wr, twice

                        i can't even believe anyone woud consider that a point worth bringing up ?!

                        now, clearly you have no idea of the purpose of a messageboard

                        it is not a place to continually just dump stats, which are available on 1/2 dozen lists+ anywhere to look on the web - but it's all you seem capable of

                        it is a place to offer clearly though-out opinions

                        you clearly have shown you are incapable of this

                        you offer me nothing whatsoever

                        i want answers to these questions :

                        give us the odds of a 9.95 guy running < 20.36 ?

                        give us the odds of a 10.03s guy going to 9.6 the next year ?

                        give us the odds of a 19.32 guy being able to run 9.82 - 9.87 ?

                        if you can't offer an answer, then don't waste my time & let some other poster who is capable of considered reflective thought offer them

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by eldrick
                          Originally posted by Texas
                          As long as you think MJ can deal with Bailey there is nothing logic about this converstion...
                          i already quoted hayes ran 20.5wr in '63

                          there was no need to mention carr beating those because he didn't do 'till after hayes tied the wr, twice

                          i can't even believe anyone woud consider that a point worth bringing up ?!

                          now, clearly you have no idea of the purpose of a messageboard

                          it is not a place to continually just dump stats, which are available on 1/2 dozen lists+ anywhere to look on the web - but it's all you seem capable of

                          it is a place to offer clearly though-out opinions

                          you clearly have shown you are incapable of this

                          you offer me nothing whatsoever

                          i want answers to these questions :

                          give us the odds of a 9.95 guy running < 20.36 ?

                          give us the odds of a 10.03s guy going to 9.6 the next year ?

                          give us the odds of a 19.32 guy being able to run 9.82 - 9.87 ?

                          if you can't offer an answer, then don't waste my time & let some other poster who is capable of considered reflective thought offer them
                          That was about as weak as your chin. I could tell you/board stats about sprinters you've never even heard of.....trust me! You are now back on that..."let's guess ok"....hahahaha!!!!!! I don't play because it's meaningless and boring. You might be astounded/astounished/amazed by that gibberish, I'm not. I prefer to deal with reality. That reality has every WR holder in the 200m for over 45 years ran the 400m. All that stuff you try to peddle changes nothing. Yes sprinters with 400m ability are the ones winning Oly gold/setting WR 's. Those are the facts my man, that's real life and all that silliness of yours won't change a thing. You need to understand the sport/athletes and can all that...."well if he ran a xxx on Monday going up the hill then coming down the hill on a Tuesday he should be running a.....".....hahahahahaha!!!!!!!

                          Where did you get the idea that MJ was running the 100m in 96?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            i'm not interested in some kid who ran 10.9 in high-school

                            i'm interested in elite end

                            i want answers to these questions :

                            give us the odds of a 9.95 guy running < 20.36 ?

                            give us the odds of a 10.03s guy going to 9.6 the next year ?

                            give us the odds of a 19.32 guy being able to run 9.82 - 9.87 ?

                            are you going to show me what you got or not ?

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by eldrick
                              i want answers to these questions :

                              give us the odds of a 9.95 guy running < 20.36 ?

                              give us the odds of a 10.03s guy going to 9.6 the next year ?

                              give us the odds of a 19.32 guy being able to run 9.82 - 9.87 ?

                              are you going to show me what you got or not ?
                              I'm not the one who needs to prove/show anything. I'm 100% right when I say every 200m WR holder over the last 45 years ran the 400m. That's a fact! I'm 100% right when I say four of the five fastest times ever ran in the 200m were ran by guys with 400m ability. It's up to you you prove me. Which can't be done. This thread isn't about...."let's guess about...." I don't care about that stuff because it has nothing to do with reality. There has never been a race won or a WR set because we all know a guy is actually capable of a certain performance based on a list of eldrickisms.....right? It's all about actual performances.....honest!

                              Ato Boldon talked about the importance of that 400m endurance in the 200m in some issue of T&FN. Every coach I've ever heard/read who talks about the 200 mentions speed reserve/speed matinance/speed endurance. Every sprinter has speed....right?

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                i asked for answers to these questions :

                                give us the odds of a 9.95 guy running < 20.36 ?

                                give us the odds of a 10.03s guy going to 9.6 the next year ?

                                give us the odds of a 19.32 guy being able to run 9.82 - 9.87 ?

                                i'm sure even you can understand these questions ???

                                are you going to show me what you got or not ?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X