Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What could MJ have run for the 100m in Atlanta ?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • What could MJ have run for the 100m in Atlanta ?

    based of 19.32 & a 10.12 split...
    0
    <9.80
    0%
    0
    9.80 - 9.85
    0%
    0
    9.86 - 9.90
    0%
    0
    9.91 - 9.95
    0%
    0
    9.96 - 10.00
    0%
    0
    10.01 - 10.05
    0%
    0
    10.06 - 10.10
    0%
    0

  • #2
    I think he may have run the most efficient curve ever and even though I have heard the 'conversion' of .3 many times (specifically in Tommie Smith's 19.5 straightaway race being worth 19.8' and further converted to a FAT equivalent of 20.04", I would only give MJ about 0.1 for that curve and think he would have been right around 10-flat. I do, however, think that if he had run the 100 some more, he could have easily been a sub-10 sprinter.

    Comment


    • #3
      If MJ had ran the 100m seriously and often he's a 9.95 guy at best.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Texas
        If MJ had ran the 100m seriously and often he's a 9.95 guy at best.
        I agree.
        I think MJ goes just under 10.
        9.97-9.99ish.
        Where I see him faltering most is the start. He'd have a ways to go to adjust to starting shoulder to shoulder...plus on a straight as opposed to a curve against world class comp. Experienced 100m guys would devour him at the start. Where he'd make up for it is around 40m. And certainly when everybody decelerates, he'd be maintaing what he has and be stronger than ANYBODY at 90m. I woulda loved to have seen him on the 4X1.
        ...3rd leg.
        Hell, I think he'd been better than Harden on 2nd since thats the longest stretch. Anybody thought what it woulda looked like with MJ having a running start and even with Bailey on anchor???
        :shock:

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by scratchman
          Where I see him faltering most is the start. He'd have a ways to go to adjust to starting shoulder to shoulder...plus on a straight as opposed to a curve against world class comp. Experienced 100m guys would devour him at the start
          just like we saw with bolt last year... :roll:

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by scratchman
            Originally posted by Texas
            If MJ had ran the 100m seriously and often he's a 9.95 guy at best.
            I agree.
            I think MJ goes just under 10.
            9.97-9.99ish.
            Where I see him faltering most is the start. He'd have a ways to go to adjust to starting shoulder to shoulder...plus on a straight as opposed to a curve against world class comp. Experienced 100m guys would devour him at the start. Where he'd make up for it is around 40m. And certainly when everybody decelerates, he'd be maintaing what he has and be stronger than ANYBODY at 90m. I woulda loved to have seen him on the 4X1.
            ...3rd leg.
            Hell, I think he'd been better than Harden on 2nd since thats the longest stretch. Anybody thought what it woulda looked like with MJ having a running start and even with Bailey on anchor???
            :shock:
            Bailey would dust MJ in anything under a 200m. He had speed, MJ had "sustained" speed. I do however see him as a better relayer than Harden, meaning (if Lewis didn't anchor) he takes Marshs place on that 3rd leg putting Marsh on the second leg. The guy was never gonna be a great 100m man and a sub 9.95 is highly unlikely.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Texas
              Bailey would dust MJ in anything under a 200m
              nonsense

              bailey was capable of close to 9.80 with a good start

              poll shows most believe mj was capable of 9.96 - 10.00

              bailey coudn't crack 20.42 ( i'll be generous & offer him 20-flat )

              if mj is 0.20s down on him over 100m, but 0.68s better than him over 200, how on earth can he NOT lose to him in ANY race <200m ???

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by eldrick
                Originally posted by Texas
                Bailey would dust MJ in anything under a 200m
                nonsense

                bailey was capable of close to 9.80 with a good start

                poll shows most believe mj was capable of 9.96 - 10.00

                bailey coudn't crack 20.42 ( i'll be generous & offer him 20-flat )

                if mj is 0.20s down on him over 100m, but 0.68s better than him over 200, how on earth can he NOT lose to him in ANY race <200m ???
                What races are there other than the 100/150? Bailey would win both of those. Are we going to make races up?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Even with a running start, over 100 m., DB blows MJ away. So MJ has to have a good lead, which is not so easy because Surin has also run 9.84, and is a good bend runner. Unless MJ has at least 3 metres, it's "Oh Canada" all over again, as it was in 1994/5/6/7.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by rasb
                    Even with a running start, over 100 m., DB blows MJ away. So MJ has to have a good lead, which is not so easy because Surin has also run 9.84, and is a good bend runner. Unless MJ has at least 3 metres, it's "Oh Canada" all over again, as it was in 1994/5/6/7.
                    In 96 Surin was not a 9.84 guy yet.

                    That race was all about Gilbert blowing Harden away...race over! If Burrell had been healthy and Lewis had anchored we now have Mitchell on that third leg. Burrell would destroy Glenroy Gilbert. Mitchell would add a little vs Surin and Lewis would have hung on.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      it appears all those sharecroppers slamming the door into your cranium when attempting to sell door-to-door, has turned whatever soft-tissue contained into mulch

                      - 0.20s down over 100m race ( ?! )

                      - 0.68s ahead over 200m race ( ??!! )

                      -> mj gains ~ 0.088s for every theoretical 10m race over 100m

                      110m race - mj loses by 0.12s

                      120m race - mj loses by 0.04s

                      130m race - mj wins by 0.04s

                      140m race - mj wins by 0.12s

                      150m race - mj wins by 0.20s

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by eldrick
                        it appears all those sharecroppers slamming the door into your cranium when attempting to sell door-to-door, has turned whatever soft-tissue contained into mulch

                        - 0.20s down over 100m race ( ?! )

                        - 0.68s ahead over 200m race ( ??!! )

                        -> mj gains ~ 0.088s for every theoretical 10m race over 100m

                        110m race - mj loses by 0.12s

                        120m race - mj loses by 0.04s

                        130m race - mj wins by 0.04s

                        140m race - mj wins by 0.12s

                        150m race - mj wins by 0.20s
                        When we start taking sprinters out of boxes and gluing the pieces together then all that mumbo jumbo might fit, since we've taken the human element out of it. Until that happens you're wrong as usual. eldrick stop with all ridiculous math crap..ok? It doesn't apply to real people with blood flowing thru the veins...ok? Donovan Bailey would blow MJ totally away in a 150, just as he was starting do when they did hook it up. To talk about MJ winning by.....hahahahahahaha!!!!!!! Look man, all that stuff makes no impression at all on me.ok? It means...0...ok? We go with what was actually accomplished. MJ was a 10.09 man but usually ran 10.18ish stuff. He had no start and wasn't gonna ever run with the sub9.90 guys. Now you can do all the math ya want that "fact" isn't going to change. You need to work with robots, you seem to struggle with human beings.

                        oh yeah...

                        Those "sharecroppers" could buy and sell you 10 times over...trust me! Some of the largest dairies, ranches,farms in central Cali the ag capitol of the world.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          As I'm sure you know, Tex., owning Glenroy Gilbert on the backstretch was not so easy. His times for the 100 metres out of the blocks in no way indicated what he could do in the Relay. He proved it in the Commonwealth Games in 1994, the Worlds in 1995, the Games in 1996, and the Worlds in 1997. And handing off to Surin and then Bailey proved a very difficult configuration for the rest of the World to beat...Oh Canada !!!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Texas
                            When we start taking sprinters...drivel...drivel
                            i see the 3rd grade arithmetic of a 9.84 v 10.09 guy who run 20.42 v 19.32 with latter losing in any race below 200m is beyond you

                            damn !

                            'dem sharecroppers sure got some hard doors !!!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by eldrick
                              i see the 3rd grade arithmetic of a 9.84 v 10.09 guy who run 20.42 v 19.32 with latter losing in any race below 200m is beyond you...
                              eldrick, reading through this thread, there are a couple of omissions which are important to take into consideration: Bailey was a 5,56WR guy running against Johnson, who had run how many 50m/60m races at/near the same speed? Bailey, a 20,42 200m sprinter, was also a 15,19 150m guy two years before that 9,84; he then ran 15,01 the year following that WR/Olympic gold. I posit that he was in the same 150m shape in 1996, as in 1997, when he ran this time, his best 100m was 9,91.

                              Your 200m vs 200m comparisons don't appear to be a good example.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X