Yes I do - in Moscow, the 100 medalists were Wells, Leonard and Petrov. The 200 medalists were Mennea, Wells and Quarrie, with Leonard fourth. Both races were slow, and all of those guys could move, with the exception of Petrov. Who cares that the times were slow?
While I would love to have seen Bolt out there, I am not sure he could have run faster on the day. These same guys ran faster in the semis. The race was slow but it did not look slow. i think everyone was a little tight in the final, or the time was wrong. Most likely the former
If the track is as soft as gh originally indicated, the men sprinters will lose more time than the other athletes (like women sprinters and men middle distance) as they are compressing it the most, both as the heaviest athletes and as the ones putting the most force into the surface. It might also, very logically, 'tire' the male sprinters the most, because they have to exert more power to get the return they need. I recall the '91 Tokyo and '96 Atlanta surfaces were very hard and very fast.
Caveat: none of the above is SCIENTIFIC, but sometimes common sense can provide the answers.
Sorry, tafnut, I don't think that holds any water (but it is consistent with the generic egocentrism of the male sprinter!). Both men's and women's performances in Paris are consistent with those from the rest of this summer. There is no appreciable drop in times. The men's times are just slow compared to previous years.
The women's events haven't been uniformly high quality. White posted a good winning 200 time but nobody after her would have won any Olympics after Munich '72. Torri Edwards would have been ONLY third in 1972, and neither Kapachinskaya or Edwards would have medalled in Moscow, LA, Seoul, Barcelona or Sydney. Kap. would have tied for bronze in Atlanta.
The performances *this season* have been uniform, not necessarily uniform across a longer time frame. My point was that there was nothing really anomalous about the Paris results (indicating a slow track, etc...).
>If the track is as soft as gh originally
>indicated, the men sprinters will lose more time
>than the other athletes (like women sprinters and
>men middle distance) as they are compressing it
>the most, both as the heaviest athletes and as
>the ones putting the most force into the surface.
>It might also, very logically, 'tire' the male
>sprinters the most, because they have to exert
>more power to get the return they need. I recall
>the '91 Tokyo and '96 Atlanta surfaces were very
>hard and very fast.
Caveat: none of the above
>is SCIENTIFIC, but sometimes common sense can
>provide the answers.>
Wasn't the track wet? I'd think that at wet track would harm the 200m the most amongst all of the track events.
"So you really believe that the world's best male sprinters can't break 20.30 in a World Championships Final with virtually no wind? Can't buy that."
Some of these guys ran 20-flat in the semis on the same track, so it's not like they couldn't crack 20.3. Why they couldn't repeat or top those performances in the final is a mystery, but you can't chalk it up to the track surface (since all races weren't that slow).
As I said, the softness of the track sapped their strength over the rounds. What's your explanation of why they all slowed from semi to final. It is not as if they all tensed up and ran poorly together.
The semis and final were on two different days. These world class sprinters had more than enough recovery time. I would chalk the difference in performance to the weather (rain) more than "surface effects".
Again, the track is not soft! Only the men's sprints were poor in comparison to other events. The male sprinters are not so different from everyone else that the surface would have such a huge impact on them and them alone.
Garry Hill wrote this the day before the meet started:
"OK, it has been 7+ years since I walked on the Atlanta track, so my memories are probably a bit fuzzy, but i took a cruise around the Paris oval yesterday and I would say it's substantially softer than the Atlanta one, for whatever that's worth. (In theory, least, it would mean sprint times might be a bit slowish, but also means that distance runners--especially doublers like Bekele--won't be chewing their feet up like Geb did in '96. "
I think he hit it on the head back then. I also think that there is no other explanation (certainly not the earlier rain) for the 10.07 and 20.30 winning times. And yes, men ARE at more of a disadvantage being heavier and more powerful.
OK, my "amateur" comment was perhaps a bit harsh. However, these guys had numerous occasions throughout the summer to put in a quality sub-20 on a hard track. They didn't, which tells me that they can't at this stage.
Someone will no doubt bring up the point: "but they were training to peak at Worlds!". If they can't run sub-20 outside of a world championship final, then they aren't at the same level as the previous generation of 200m runners. Hence, we're back to the same conclusion.
i think your an ass not once has john capel shown of to the crowd john capel is a good 200m runner with a personal best of 19.85 seconds and 9.97 for 100m john capel cant be that much of an arse because he won the 200m final in world championships. yes frankie fredericks is a good 200m runner but he got beat by john capel. personaly i think the person who said that john capel will get his ass broke i think you should get your ass broke by me you fucking stupid cunt you really are a dick-head understand you fucking tosser prick
>?!?! how fast is that little girl's hissy fit going to stay undeleted?
They're too busy deleting mine for being politically incorrect in the San Francisco Bay area, rather than going after these that are just plain disgusting- after all that would be blocking 'free speech' wouldn't it?
"Times are unusually slow on the men's side only. The women are performing well."
"The performances *this season* have been uniform, not necessarily uniform across a longer time frame" -JRM
Weren't you referring in your first quote to THIS meet and THIS track? My point was that I don't agree that the women are performing well when the bronze medallist in the 200 would have been no better than bronze medallist at an Olympics 32 years ago, and both the silver and bronze medallists would not have medalled at any Olympics from 1980 all the way through 2000, with the sole exception of Atlanta where Kapachinskaya would have tied for bronze. NOT terribly impressive if you ask me.
<<"...by the way kenteris would NOT have won this time and wont next yeat either.
... gatlin has a 19.86 in a semi in the ncaa and that speaks volumes about his potential"
Please reconcile for me
1. Kenteris has a 19.85, so why does this not speak volumes about his potential?
2. Gatlin's 19.86 is two years old; Kenteris' 19.85 is from 2002. Same question as above>>>
well capel should have won in 2000, but he did not because of a rookie mistake. now with more experience he was able to win. kenteris was not in the race because he wasn't in good enough shape to compete successfully. just because he run sub 20 once in his life does not make him automatic. he is no mj, mike marsh or frankie fredericks or even ato boldon. kk had his chance at the top for 2 years, he is over 30 now so that is it for him at the top! i think capel and patton will get even better when they get more experience. but my pick to win next year is gatlin if he stays healthy. gatlin run 19.86 in a semifinal in the 2002 ncaa (you incorrectly said two yrs ago) outdoor meet in louisianna. he has not even reached his peak yet at either sprints and unlike many other sprinters he did not run four years of college meets which have sapped out his legs (doubling, relays, regionals, indoor, outdoor meets etc). i think bolt can be a threat next year, not this year like many said, unless he grows another 2 inches and becomes 6' 7".
my picks for next year in the 200 meters:
1) gatlin (us)
2) bolt (jam)
3) capel (us)
>Whew!! These guys were spared being embarassed
>by the Jamaican Federation when they withdrew
Do you realize that the winning time is
>only marginally better than the winning time at
>the World Youth Champs which was run in pouring
Do you realize that the winning time is
>slower than the winning time at the Pan Am
>Juniors when the winner slowed approaching the
>finish line and turned sideways
and worst of
Do you realize that the winning time
>is slower than the winning time at the Jamaica
>High School Champs
The participants should
>each deny ever having been in this race.
Yes...EVERY athlete in that final is capable of running MUCH faster, but the fact is, no one did. With times like that, the race was up for grabs--even the guy with the slowest time coming into the meet could have won. Whatever the circumstances of this race to make it as slow as it was, they still determined who was the fastest in that race on that day. Times are not so important in a head-to-head race--it is all about "let's race"--let's see who gets to the finish line first.
>The semis and final were on two different days.
>These world class sprinters had more than enough
>recovery time. I would chalk the difference in
>performance to the weather (rain) more than
Semis were 24 degrees (75) with 61% humidity; final was 17 degrees (63) with 82% humidity.