Wariner aiming for world best 300m

[werner]

Per IAAF.org.

That's cool and all, but my question is, what's the point? The THREE HUNDRED??

http://www.iaaf.org/GP08/news/kind=100/newsid=45271.html

[gtothekizzle]

felix went for the indoor 300 record last year.
i guess it's just something you can say you did?
maybe a showing of what type of shape hes in.

[attack the hill]

the 300
http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/3842/300poster32758e32pn1.jpg

[Brumund-Smith]

Per IAAF.org.

That's cool and all, but my question is, what's the point? The THREE HUNDRED??

A better question would be WHY NOT? He has a chance to set a World Record, though I think LaShawn Merritt could probably beat him right now. This is not going to hurt his preparation for the Trials. I think this race is going to be awesome.

[gtothekizzle]

A better question would be WHY NOT? He has a chance to set a World Record, though I think LaShawn Merritt could probably beat him right now. This is not going to hurt his preparation for the Trials. I think this race is going to be awesome.
at the 300 or 400?

[remiks]

at the 300 or 400?

Given that he just beat Wariner in the 400, perhaps both. Of course, this was before Wariner dipped under 44 this year. I think, given Merritt's 200m speed, he could beat Wariner at this distance (300m).

[S.E.B.runner]

This is madness!

[runnerman17]

This is madness!

[start deep voice]
No! This is...
[/deep voice]

a race ran in Norway.

edit: I think

[Junker23]

A better question would be WHY NOT? He has a chance to set a World Record, though I think LaShawn Merritt could probably beat him right now. This is not going to hurt his preparation for the Trials. I think this race is going to be awesome.

Bingo. Having a world record would still be pretty sweet, no matter the distance.

[Track Dude]

Bingo. Having a world record would still be pretty sweet, no matter the distance.

Probably makes him more money via incentives at NIKE too.
Ka-Ching! Ka-Ching!
:p

[ragrunner]

Probably makes him more money via incentives at NIKE too.
Ka-Ching! Ka-Ching!
:p

I thought he ran for adidas...

[Ray_Ray]

I thought he ran for adidas...

He does.

[Michael Tait]

Is this a 300m debut?

[hijackthecar]

1 30.85A Michael Johnson USA 13.09.67 1 Pretoria 24.03.2000
2 31.31 LaShawn Merritt USA 27.06.86 1 Eugene 08.08.2006
3 31.48 Danny Everett USA 01.11.66 1 Jerez de la Frontera 03.09.1990
3 31.48 Roberto Hernández CUB 06.03.67 2 Jerez de la Frontera 03.09.1990
5 31.56 Michael Johnson USA 13.09.67 1 Salamanca 22.07.1994
5 31.56 Doug Walker GBR 28.07.73 1 Gateshead 19.07.1998
7 31.61 Anthuan Maybank USA 30.12.69 1 Durham 13.07.1996
8 31.67 John Regis GBR 13.10.66 1 Gateshead 17.07.1992
9 31.69 Roberto Hernández CUB 06.03.67 1 Bratislava 20.06.1990
10 31.70 Kirk Baptiste USA 20.06.63 1 London 18.08.1984
11 31.72 Michael Johnson USA 13.09.67 1 Gateshead 30.07.1993
11 31.72 Jeremy Wariner USA 31.01.84 1 Ostrava 12.06.2008

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_300ok.htm

I'd say Merritt has him beaten

[CGBatch]

I'd say Merritt has him beaten

Well yes Merritt has better 200m speed. The thing is Wariner can hold on. They should have some interesting races this year.

On a kinda related note (not really anymore) I was like five feet from Clyde Hart today.

[MIDAS]

I love how Wariner will run a 300 and not an 800...

[pln09]

I love how Wariner will run a 300 and not an 800...

You do realize that he runs a fair number of 200s, right? While not commonly run, the 300 is not a stretch for Wariner to run.

[Smitty]

I'd say Merritt has him beaten

August vs. June? I know Merritt's was in an off year and Wariner's an Olympic one, but still.

[prongs]

August vs. June? I know Merritt's was in an off year and Wariner's an Olympic one, but still.

i'd say merritt would blow him up in a 300 tomorrow, or the day after, or the day after that, or even...gasp...the day after that.

[Anthony]

I love how Wariner will run a 300 and not an 800...
Oh my goodness, shut up. Not this crap again.

WHY would Wariner run an 800 -- an event he's never even ran close to before -- before the U.S. trials? Why would you not work on your form through 300 to prepare yourself for running a fast pace in the 400? Why would you double the distance you run and put your body through to something it's not ready for and not going to do? That's stupid.

i'd say merritt would blow him up in a 300 tomorrow, or the day after, or the day after that, or even...gasp...the day after that.
I'd say Merritt would most likely win, but to say he'd "blow him up" is a big exaggeration. Wariner had no competition in this at all, and he's ran faster 300 splits en route to a 400. He ran 31.5X en route to his PR. I do agree that I'd put more money on Merritt in a 300 match up, though.

[kingcoe]

So, do folks think the 30.85 record is strong enough? Averaging under 10.3 per 100m seems pretty good to me . . .

[Anthony]

So, do folks think the 30.85 record is strong enough? Averaging under 10.3 per 100m seems pretty good to me . . .
IMO, his 300 record is just as strong as his 200, if not stronger.

[Brumund-Smith]

IMO, his 300 record is just as strong as his 200, if not stronger.

No, it's not.

[Anthony]

No, it's not.
I disagree completely. For one, the 300 is rarely contested. And you will probably never find a better 200/400 doubler in your lifetime than Michael Johnson. When he ran that 300, he decimated the field and went at a 10.28 pace. No one has ever even remotely come close to doing that.

If you want to be technical about it, a 43.5 second 400 runner averages 10.875 seconds per 100. A 19.6 200 runner averages 9.8 per second. If you take the mean time between those two, you'd have a 10.34 per 100. Now it's not exactly a highly scientific method, but that tells me that even a person who ran a 19.6/43.5 double would only be at 31.02.

Again, not scientific, but who besides Michael Johnson has ever had those kind of credentials? We may never see anyone even close to that kind of a double for a long while, unless Bolt can really increase his speed endurance and lower his 400 time dramatically (and improve his 200 a bit).

Michael Johnson's 200 record will be broken either before or around the same time as his 300 record, IMO.

By the way, if you want to use the same formula for Johnson's "predicted" 300 time using his world records, it'd be -- (10.795+9.66)/2 = 10.2275 x 3 = 30.6285... so he was definitely still getting it.

[Equinox2100]

For one, the 300 is rarely contested.



That makes the 200 more impressive. So many people run it - yet it still stands. It was the same argument against the 24-hour run record


Michael Johnson's 200 record will be broken either before or around the same time as his 300 record, IMO.

If someone makes a serious run at the 300, as in it becomes an oft run event, then it will fall b4 his 200 mark IMO

[B Nel]

I love how Wariner will run a 300 and not an 800...

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/3679/warineruu1.jpg

[Anthony]

That makes the 200 more impressive. So many people run it - yet it still stands. It was the same argument against the 24-hour run record



If someone makes a serious run at the 300, as in it becomes an oft run event, then it will fall b4 his 200 mark IMO
We weren't discussing whether or not it was more impressive. Read the posts.

And it will never become an "oft run" event because it isn't an Olympic event, isn't an NCAA event, isn't a high school event -- nothing. It's just an interesting race, just like the 150 matchup between Johnson and Bailey.

And you never gave any reason why it will fall before his 200 mark. I know it's just your opinion, but I still would like to know the reasoning. I think maintaining the pace he did over 300m is far harder than the pace he did over 200.

[Equinox2100]

We weren't discussing whether or not it was more impressive. Read the posts.

And it will never become an "oft run" event because it isn't an Olympic event, isn't an NCAA event, isn't a high school event -- nothing. It's just an interesting race, just like the 150 matchup between Johnson and Bailey.

And you never gave any reason why it will fall before his 200 mark. I know it's just your opinion, but I still would like to know the reasoning. I think maintaining the pace he did over 300m is far harder than the pace he did over 200.

The discussion is which is stronger, which i took to mean stronger = more impressive. It usually is, right?...

I know it wont be run regularly, im just saying in a hypothetical world.

Also, I think it would produce faster times because running a 300 you run 2 straights and 1 turn, which would produce much faster times than the raw 200 avg split + 400 avg split / 2 or whatever the formula would compare, you know?

Running the 200 and the 400, 1/2 the event is a turn, whereas in the 300, 1/3 of the event is a turn.

[BisonHurdler]

I disagree completely. For one, the 300 is rarely contested. And you will probably never find a better 200/400 doubler in your lifetime than Michael Johnson. When he ran that 300, he decimated the field and went at a 10.28 pace. No one has ever even remotely come close to doing that.

If you want to be technical about it, a 43.5 second 400 runner averages 10.875 seconds per 100. A 19.6 200 runner averages 9.8 per second. If you take the mean time between those two, you'd have a 10.34 per 100. Now it's not exactly a highly scientific method, but that tells me that even a person who ran a 19.6/43.5 double would only be at 31.02.

Again, not scientific, but who besides Michael Johnson has ever had those kind of credentials? We may never see anyone even close to that kind of a double for a long while, unless Bolt can really increase his speed endurance and lower his 400 time dramatically (and improve his 200 a bit).

Michael Johnson's 200 record will be broken either before or around the same time as his 300 record, IMO.

By the way, if you want to use the same formula for Johnson's "predicted" 300 time using his world records, it'd be -- (10.795+9.66)/2 = 10.2275 x 3 = 30.6285... so he was definitely still getting it.


How does that strengthen your argument [that MJ's 300 record is stronger than his 200 record] at all? To talk about "pacing" or "average 100m splits" is a little silly in sprint races. The first 100m of a 200m or a 300 is going to be invariably slower because the runner is accelerating from a velocity of 0m/s during that time. So to take the "average 100m split" from a 200m race and a 300m race - and then try to apply some simple division - is a futile endeavor. You've already shortchanged the 200m time, as 50% of its 100m splits contain a significant acceleration phase, whereas only 33% of the 300m's 100m splits contain this phase. Then, of course, deceleration comes into play (more so in the 300m). So to apply simple averaging of splits without these considerations is a very poor way to try to sway an argument.


Edit: Keep in mind that Pretoria is at 1363m of altitude as well. Also keep in mind that MJ's fastest non Atlanta, non altitude-aided, non wind-aided 200m ever was 19.77.

[Anthony]

@ Bison: My fault, I thought it was common sense... let me explain: when an event isn't contested as much, there's less chance of people running it. When people don't run an event, there's less chance they can run a time in that event (funny, right?). When they can't run a time, they can't break the world record. If an event is rarely contested, and the world record is really strong, don't you think it's going to be a tough record to break? It's not like you'll get many chances to do it. I'm pretty sure that strengthens my argument. No one is working to run a 300 fast. They're working to run a 200 or 400 fast.

And you're right about the pace being off... hence why I said it's not a scientific method at all. But I'd say it worked as a pretty damn good indicator of potential times, wouldn't you? Your "science" about acceleration is wrong, however. Human beings can only "accelerate" 40m or so, max. After that, it's a slow negative acceleration (despite popular belief, there's no such thing as deceleration; acceleration is any change in direction and/or speed).

The whole point of using both the 400 and 200 was to factor in the fatigue factor of the 400 and the speed factor of the 200 -- and clearly they're equally represented by 50% ;) So, no, it's not scientific, but there's not really a better layman's way to do it unless you want to get technical and start discussing VO2.

@ Equinox: How is stronger more impressive? If a world record is in a rarely contested event and it's strong, I'd say that makes it stronger, wouldn't you?

And, no, you actually average much SLOWER times than my formula. Try it for Wariner, Merritt, Johnson himself -- anyone who's run a 300. You'll see that. And what does running two straight and a curve matter? The fastest part of the 400 is normally the second curve. But it's a moot point because I factored in the 200 as well, and no one maintains speed off their 200 through a 300.


I think the WR in the 200 is very tough. Toughest regularly contested event, IMO. I just think you guys are short changing the 300 because of the mystique around that 200 record that gets talked about more. The 300 is just as strong.

[BisonHurdler]

And you're right about the pace being off... hence why I said it's not a scientific method at all. But I'd say it worked as a pretty damn good indicator of potential times, wouldn't you? Your "science" about acceleration is wrong, however. Human beings can only "accelerate" 40m or so, max. After that, it's a slow negative acceleration (despite popular belief, there's no such thing as deceleration; acceleration is any change in direction and/or speed).

The whole point of using both the 400 and 200 was to factor in the fatigue factor of the 400 and the speed factor of the 200 -- and clearly they're equally represented by 50% ;) So, no, it's not scientific, but there's not really a better layman's way to do it unless you want to get technical and start discussing VO2.




Of course sprinters don't accelerate an entire 100m, and of course I never said that. But when you have 40% of your first 100m split being spent accelerating, you clearly can't evenly compare that to a subsequent 100m split where the runner is at nearly top speed throughout much/most of it. Please don't put words into my mouth.








@ Bison: My fault, I thought it was common sense... let me explain: when an event isn't contested as much, there's less chance of people running it. When people don't run an event, there's less chance they can run a time in that event (funny, right?). When they can't run a time, they can't break the world record. If an event is rarely contested, and the world record is really strong, don't you think it's going to be a tough record to break? It's not like you'll get many chances to do it. I'm pretty sure that strengthens my argument. No one is working to run a 300 fast. They're working to run a 200 or 400 fast.




Fewer people running the event doesn't necessitate a stronger record. I get what you're trying to say, but you're not saying it very well. Your quote had to do with his 300m record being stronger than his 200m record. Someone countered, saying it was not. You disagreed with that very statement. You then use as your very first "point" or criterion the fact that few people race the event. This is at best a non sequitur, and at worst it actually argues the opposite point.

Much of the disconnect or confusion here I believe has to do with everyone's definition of "strong." I agree that, as things stand now (and probably will for a very long time), MJ's 300m record has a decent chance of lasting as long - if not longer than - his 200m record, simply for the fact that almost no one attempts the 300m. But I believe "stronger" (to me) should apply to the actual quality of the record compared to the abilities of other athletes. We've got countless elite guys running many 200m races every year, and, despite the recent glut of 19.6s, the very best on the planet are still a far cry from 19.32. In the 300m, we're lucky if an elite 200 or 400m runner attempts a serious one every few years. When you have guys like Doug Walker, Thomas Jefferson, and Marc Foucan in the list of top 20 performers at 300m all-time, it's a bit difficult to say with confidence that the all-time 300m list looks even remotely like one thinks it would/should if athletes ran it consistently. Of course, I'm not here to play the woulda/shoulda/coulda game. But the point is that fewer people run this race, so it's difficult to call the 300m record "stronger" without more solid data points.

[Junker23]

And it will never become an "oft run" event because it isn't an Olympic event, isn't an NCAA event, isn't a high school event -- nothing. It's just an interesting race, just like the 150 matchup between Johnson and Bailey.

And you never gave any reason why it will fall before his 200 mark. I know it's just your opinion, but I still would like to know the reasoning. I think maintaining the pace he did over 300m is far harder than the pace he did over 200.
Equinox was speaking in the hypothetical case that the 300 is run as commonly as the 200. In that world, he believed the 300 record would be broken before the 200 record. To me, it makes sense. In a rarely run event, the next fastest guy behind Johnson is .46 away. In the much more commonly run, shorter event the next best guy is still .30 away.

(despite popular belief, there's no such thing as deceleration; acceleration is any change in direction and/or speed).

And now this is just super anal. Deceleration is a word used to describe negative acceleration.

[remiks]

And it will never become an "oft run" event because it isn't an Olympic event, isn't an NCAA event, isn't a high school event -- nothing. It's just an interesting race, just like the 150 matchup between Johnson and Bailey.

The 300 is actually contested fairly frequently indoors on the high school level, particularly in the northeast. In some states, probably more frequently than the open 200m.

[MIDAS]

[QUOTE=Anthony;2565028]Oh my goodness, shut up. Not this crap again.

WHY would Wariner run an 800 -- an event he's never even ran close to before -- before the U.S. trials? Why would you not work on your form through 300 to prepare yourself for running a fast pace in the 400? Why would you double the distance you run and put your body through to something it's not ready for and not going to do? That's stupid. /QUOTE] (edit: messed up the quote)

First of all, I was just making a funny little allusion to another argument, so chill out. I didn't say anything about him running it now and - as has been mentioned before - his 200 is nowhere close to MJs, and yet his 400 is near equal, giving me reason to believe he would run a very interesting 800. So relax and stop bleeding out of your vagina over harmless speculation.

[gtothekizzle]

[QUOTE=Anthony;2565028]Oh my goodness, shut up. Not this crap again.

WHY would Wariner run an 800 -- an event he's never even ran close to before -- before the U.S. trials? Why would you not work on your form through 300 to prepare yourself for running a fast pace in the 400? Why would you double the distance you run and put your body through to something it's not ready for and not going to do? That's stupid. /QUOTE] (edit: messed up the quote)
First of all, I was just making a funny little allusion to another argument, so chill out. I didn't say anything about him running it now and - as has been mentioned before - his 200 is nowhere close to MJs, and yet his 400 is near equal, giving me reason to believe he would run a very interesting 800. So relax and stop bleeding out of your vagina over harmless speculation.
its just that the question of JW doing the 800 is one of those really really really really really annoying things people tend to ask all the time and continue to press even though he has ALWAYS said he will never in his life do an 800 competitively. 3rd fastest over the 400 distance, why would he ever switch. thats like wondering what allyson felix could run for the 800 cause of her smaller build (like JW) and their success at the longer sprints.

[pln09]

its just that the question of JW doing the 800 is one of those really really really really really annoying things people tend to ask all the time and continue to press even though he has ALWAYS said he will never in his life do an 800 competitively. 3rd fastest over the 400 distance, why would he ever switch. thats like wondering what allyson felix could run for the 800 cause of her smaller build (like JW) and their success at the longer sprints.

That analogy doesn't work. Felix is (obviously) a 200 runner of the highest caliber; Wariner is not. When she runs the 400, she is moving up from her primary event; Wariner is a 400 runner. There's more to the 800 argument than just build. While I don't agree with the argument, it isn't that simple.

(note: I am NOT suggesting that Wariner run the 800. The comparison you presented just...bothered me, I guess.)

[gtothekizzle]

That analogy doesn't work. Felix is (obviously) a 200 runner of the highest caliber; Wariner is not. When she runs the 400, she is moving up from her primary event; Wariner is a 400 runner. There's more to the 800 argument than just build. While I don't agree with the argument, it isn't that simple.

(note: I am NOT suggesting that Wariner run the 800. The comparison you presented just...bothered me, I guess.)
i wasn't making an analogy about the 200, i was making it about them both being strength based sprinters which they both are and the fact they both have very small body frames compared to their competitors. i wasn't necessarily comparing them, i was just trying to point out that the argument that because JW is skinny, a good 400 runner, doesn't have much speed, and is white therefore he'll be a amazing 800 runner in many peoples eyes.

[Junker23]

i wasn't making an analogy about the 200, i was making it about them both being strength based sprinters which they both are and the fact they both have very small body frames compared to their competitors. i wasn't necessarily comparing them, i was just trying to point out that the argument that because JW is skinny, a good 400 runner, doesn't have much speed, and is white therefore he'll be a amazing 800 runner in many peoples eyes.

Alyson Felix is black.

[pln09]

i wasn't making an analogy about the 200, i was making it about them both being strength based sprinters which they both are and the fact they both have very small body frames compared to their competitors. i wasn't necessarily comparing them, i was just trying to point out that the argument that because JW is skinny, a good 400 runner, doesn't have much speed, and is white therefore he'll be a amazing 800 runner in many peoples eyes.

Felix's ability in the 400 is speed-based.

[Anthony]

The 300 is actually contested fairly frequently indoors on the high school level, particularly in the northeast. In some states, probably more frequently than the open 200m.
I'm well aware of that. There are a few 300m tracks in the northeast, I believe. The 600 is also run indoors, but at least that has a championship in many areas (such as the Big 12). The 300 does not.

That analogy doesn't work. Felix is (obviously) a 200 runner of the highest caliber; Wariner is not. When she runs the 400, she is moving up from her primary event; Wariner is a 400 runner. There's more to the 800 argument than just build. While I don't agree with the argument, it isn't that simple.

(note: I am NOT suggesting that Wariner run the 800. The comparison you presented just...bothered me, I guess.)
Wariner made the finals in the 200 at the U.S. trials last year and did respectable. What is it with people thinking a 20.12 (or whatever his PR is; I know it's 20.1X) isn't "of the highest caliber"? And Felix has a build similar to an 800 runner, and she also dominates the 400 having not trained for it. I don't see how his comparison isn't valid at all.

And for all you saying Wariner runs his 400 differently than Johnson -- look at some of their splits. They are almost identical for every race where they've ran similar times. Wariner is a speed runner, and he happens to have great strength. Same with Johnson. Johnson, in fact, had more strength than Wariner.

First of all, I was just making a funny little allusion to another argument, so chill out. I didn't say anything about him running it now and - as has been mentioned before - his 200 is nowhere close to MJs, and yet his 400 is near equal, giving me reason to believe he would run a very interesting 800. So relax and stop bleeding out of your vagina over harmless speculation.
Your allusion went right over my head then, because clearly you were being serious in some matter, as you're still discussing it and not trying to be funny. And, nope, his 200 is nowhere near Michael Johnson's. But who has a 200 close to Michael Johnson? And his 400 isn't "near equal" either. He's got a good .3 seconds to go -- that's quite a bit for an elite 400 runner. Why don't you want to see Darold Williamson run an 800? Or LaShawn Merritt? Williamson is slower than Wariner in the 200. Merritt is only somewhat faster.

Of course sprinters don't accelerate an entire 100m, and of course I never said that. But when you have 40% of your first 100m split being spent accelerating, you clearly can't evenly compare that to a subsequent 100m split where the runner is at nearly top speed throughout much/most of it. Please don't put words into my mouth.

Fewer people running the event doesn't necessitate a stronger record. I get what you're trying to say, but you're not saying it very well. Your quote had to do with his 300m record being stronger than his 200m record. Someone countered, saying it was not. You disagreed with that very statement. You then use as your very first "point" or criterion the fact that few people race the event. This is at best a non sequitur, and at worst it actually argues the opposite point.

Much of the disconnect or confusion here I believe has to do with everyone's definition of "strong." I agree that, as things stand now (and probably will for a very long time), MJ's 300m record has a decent chance of lasting as long - if not longer than - his 200m record, simply for the fact that almost no one attempts the 300m. But I believe "stronger" (to me) should apply to the actual quality of the record compared to the abilities of other athletes. We've got countless elite guys running many 200m races every year, and, despite the recent glut of 19.6s, the very best on the planet are still a far cry from 19.32. In the 300m, we're lucky if an elite 200 or 400m runner attempts a serious one every few years. When you have guys like Doug Walker, Thomas Jefferson, and Marc Foucan in the list of top 20 performers at 300m all-time, it's a bit difficult to say with confidence that the all-time 300m list looks even remotely like one thinks it would/should if athletes ran it consistently. Of course, I'm not here to play the woulda/shoulda/coulda game. But the point is that fewer people run this race, so it's difficult to call the 300m record "stronger" without more solid data points.Here is your exact quotation:

"You've already shortchanged the 200m time, as 50% of its 100m splits contain a significant acceleration phase, whereas only 33% of the 300m's 100m splits contain this phase. Then, of course, deceleration comes into play (more so in the 300m). So to apply simple averaging of splits without these considerations is a very poor way to try to sway an argument."

Do you accelerate 50% of the time in the 200? No, you do not. It's not even the majority. You have a running start in the second portion of the 200, hence why many times the second 100 is faster. That's all there is to that. Sure, you accelerate during the first 100. You do the same in the 400 and 300, do you not? I did not put any words in your mouth -- that is your quote exactly as it appears. I'm taking nothing out of context.

And you completely put words in my mouth if you want to be technical. I never said anything about the acceleration phase whatsoever. I averaged a person's 400 and 200 times. To say that it's not fair because of acceleration, as I've already pointed out, is a moot point because the 400 would factor that in. Did you not comprehend that concept?

And I don't even get what you're trying to say. I said his 300 record was stronger because it's just as tough as the 200, and yet it's also a rarely contested event. So not only is it as insane as his 200m when you take into account the fact that no one's ever even remotely challenged it, it's also going to be far harder as no one is ever going to train to run a 300 all-out. It's not a record that people exactly have their eyes on. Let me break it down again for you: I never said it was already as tough as the 200, and I said it may be stronger because fewer people will ever contest the event, and no one trains for that event as they train for the 200 or 400. You'd have to completely rework your training regimen for either a 200 or 400 runner, as you'd have to work on entirely different aspects of each race.

[pln09]

Wariner made the finals in the 200 at the U.S. trials last year and did respectable. What is it with people thinking a 20.12 (or whatever his PR is; I know it's 20.1X) isn't "of the highest caliber"? And Felix has a build similar to an 800 runner, and she also dominates the 400 having not trained for it. I don't see how his comparison isn't valid at all.

...and Felix won the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP.

Wariner is a respectable 200 runner. However, it pales in comparison to his 400, without a doubt. He is one of the best 400 runners in history. In 2007, he wasn't even in the top 20 in the 200 worldwide (http://www.tilastopaja.org/db/topevent.php?Season=2007&ind=0&sex=1&event=50&top=20&All=0).

Felix, on the other hand, is the best 200 runner in the world. She moves up very well to the 400 (hence the strength-based 200 runner comment), but the 200 is clearly her best event. Felix has the best 200 speed of any female 400 runner, as she is THE BEST 200 RUNNER IN THE WORLD.

[Anthony]

...and Felix won the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP.

Wariner is a respectable 200 runner. However, it pales in comparison to his 400, without a doubt. He is one of the best 400 runners in history. In 2007, he wasn't even in the top 20 in the 200 worldwide (http://www.tilastopaja.org/db/topevent.php?Season=2007&ind=0&sex=1&event=50&top=20&All=0).

Felix, on the other hand, is the best 200 runner in the world. She moves up very well to the 400 (hence the strength-based 200 runner comment), but the 200 is clearly her best event. Felix has the best 200 speed of any female 400 runner, as she is THE BEST 200 RUNNER IN THE WORLD.
I agree completely that Wariner pales in comparison in the 200 than what he does in the 400. No argument at all there.

I don't think you can say her 200 is better than her 400, however, when she dominates competitions without even focusing on that event. So I reiterate: why not talk about her for the 800? She's got amazing 400 strength, if you watch her run the 400. Sure, she's an amazing 200 runner. But to say she'd be any worse off in the 800 than Wariner is horse crap, IMO.

[pln09]

I agree completely that Wariner pales in comparison in the 200 than what he does in the 400. No argument at all there.

I don't think you can say her 200 is better than her 400, however, when she dominates competitions without even focusing on that event. So I reiterate: why not talk about her for the 800? She's got amazing 400 strength, if you watch her run the 400. Sure, she's an amazing 200 runner. But to say she'd be any worse off in the 800 than Wariner is horse crap, IMO.

Wariner derives his 400 ability from his strength.

Felix derives her 400 ability from her speed.

The end.

Edit: I don't think think Wariner should run the 800, in any way. I was just bothered by what I feel is a bad analogy. The above summarizes why I think this. If you can't see the difference...I don't really care. I've said all I can say.

[Anthony]

Wariner derives his 400 ability from his strength.

Felix derives her 400 ability from her speed.

The end.

Edit: I don't think think Wariner should run the 800, in any way. I was just bothered by what I feel is a bad analogy. The above summarizes why I think this. If you can't see the difference...I don't really care. I've said all I can say.
What on earth?

Wariner is a speed-based 400 runner, just as Michael Johnson was. He can power through utilizing his speed, and he has enough strength to hold on, just as Michael Johnson did. Yet again, I challenge you or anyone here to go look at splits for each 100 from Wariner's races and Johnson's races in the same time range. They are identical.

I see what you're implying, but you're wrong. To say Wariner isn't a speed runner is silly. Look at the men competing in the 400, and you'll see the only one that's an elite 400 runner that's better than him in the 200 in LaShawn Merritt. Other than that, what 400 runner is faster than him in the 200? Felix is an entirely different story as her main event is the 200, but she can move up and beat anyone in the 400. So why should she not be looked at for the 800 too, in your eyes? Because she's better at the 200, even though she makes the 400 look easy and toys around with the field?

[aidan]

Wariner derives his 400 ability from his strength.

Felix derives her 400 ability from her speed.

The end.

Edit: I don't think think Wariner should run the 800, in any way. I was just bothered by what I feel is a bad analogy. The above summarizes why I think this. If you can't see the difference...I don't really care. I've said all I can say.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but i believe that in the 2004 olympic finals, Wariner had the best 200m pr of everyone in the 400m competition... and has the 3rd best 200m speed of any of the top (i forget the number) 400m runners ever.. please someone fill in/fix what I said if I have the numbers wrong slightly... but the point is.. how can you say he is not a speed based 400m runner when he has one of the fastest 200m pr's of top 400m runners all time

[pln09]

What on earth?

Wariner is a speed-based 400 runner, just as Michael Johnson was. He can power through utilizing his speed, and he has enough strength to hold on, just as Michael Johnson did. Yet again, I challenge you or anyone here to go look at splits for each 100 from Wariner's races and Johnson's races in the same time range. They are identical.

I see what you're implying, but you're wrong. To say Wariner isn't a speed runner is silly. Look at the men competing in the 400, and you'll see the only one that's an elite 400 runner that's better than him in the 200 in LaShawn Merritt. Other than that, what 400 runner is faster than him in the 200? Felix is an entirely different story as her main event is the 200, but she can move up and beat anyone in the 400. So why should she not be looked at for the 800 too, in your eyes? Because she's better at the 200, even though she makes the 400 look easy and toys around with the field?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but i believe that in the 2004 olympic finals, Wariner had the best 200m pr of everyone in the 400m competition... and has the 3rd best 200m speed of any of the top (i forget the number) 400m runners ever.. please someone fill in/fix what I said if I have the numbers wrong slightly... but the point is.. how can you say he is not a speed based 400m runner when he has one of the fastest 200m pr's of top 400m runners all time

Perhaps I'm wrong in that respect. Regardless, I still stand by my point, although perhaps a little less firmly. Felix is one of the best 200 runners - the best - in the world. She moves up very well to the 400, but she has also run 10.93 in the hundred, an event in which she could be competitive were it not for her start. Wariner, while certainly no slouch, is significantly worse at the 200 than than the 400, and I venture to guess that he would get crushed in the 100.

Just a side note, Wariner has a 400 PR half a second faster than anyone else in the world. Therefore, it isn't exactly fair to compare him to other 400 runners because he is so much better. Saying that he's speed-based "just as Michael Johnson was" isn't quite accurate. The difference between their 200s is far greater than the difference between that of their 400s. Johnson has a world record. Wariner is out of the top 20. How about we call him...balanced?

Lastly: "So why should she not be looked at for the 800 too, in your eyes?" I don't think Wariner should be, like I have said repeatedly.

[Equinox2100]

@ Equinox: How is stronger more impressive? If a world record is in a rarely contested event and it's strong, I'd say that makes it stronger, wouldn't you?

And, no, you actually average much SLOWER times than my formula. Try it for Wariner, Merritt, Johnson himself -- anyone who's run a 300. You'll see that. And what does running two straight and a curve matter? The fastest part of the 400 is normally the second curve. But it's a moot point because I factored in the 200 as well, and no one maintains speed off their 200 through a 300.


We take it to be true that running a linear mile (if a track were a mile long) would be FASTER than running one on a regular track. Why? The turns. So, logically, wouldn't sprinting times be MORE affected by the turn due to the speed they're running at (percentage wise)?

Is there a WR 100m on a turn? I promise you it's way slower than 9.72

[Anthony]

We take it to be true that running a linear mile (if a track were a mile long) would be FASTER than running one on a regular track. Why? The turns. So, logically, wouldn't sprinting times be MORE affected by the turn due to the speed they're running at (percentage wise)?

Is there a WR 100m on a turn? I promise you it's way slower than 9.72
Yet again, I already addressed this based on the fact that the 200 time would correct the two turns in the 400 time because no one would maintain their 200 speed through the 300.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore, to be honest.

[Mrr82]

So some things on this thread.....there won't be an agreement because Anthony means one of the hardest records to break, and other people are interpreting what he said (and correctly based upon his word use) as the strongest record. Which is not the same thing. Mj's 200 is way stronger a record then his 300 record. But not neccesarily way harder to break given the reasons anthony gave, such as it's rarely run and never at championships.

Mj ran his record in Mar of 2000, sandwhiched around times of 19.71 and 43.9h. It would be kinda silly to think he couldn't have run faster then when he went 19.32 and 43.49 in the olympics which had trials and everything. At that point if he ran a 300 all out, he'd likely run 30.2-30.4. Those are just my thoughts though.

[Anthony]

So some things on this thread.....there won't be an agreement because Anthony means one of the hardest records to break, and other people are interpreting what he said (and correctly based upon his word use) as the strongest record. Which is not the same thing. Mj's 200 is way stronger a record then his 300 record. But not neccesarily way harder to break given the reasons anthony gave, such as it's rarely run and never at championships.

Mj ran his record in Mar of 2000, sandwhiched around times of 19.71 and 43.9h. It would be kinda silly to think he couldn't have run faster then when he went 19.32 and 43.49 in the olympics which had trials and everything. At that point if he ran a 300 all out, he'd likely run 30.2-30.4. Those are just my thoughts though.
Mrr82, yet again, you have misread everything in another thread I'm involved in.

I said his record was stronger in the 300. I said that specifically many times. Please read the entire thread and then respond. And 30.2? You need to quit smoking. You think Michael Johnson -- or anyone on the entire planet -- could average roughly 10.03 seconds per 100 through a 300? Yeah, and Michael Johnson could have ran a 400 in 41.5 in his prime. :rolleyes:

[Mrr82]

Mrr82, yet again, you have misread everything in another thread I'm involved in.

I said his record was stronger in the 300. I said that specifically many times. Please read the entire thread and then respond. And 30.2? You need to quit smoking. You think Michael Johnson -- or anyone on the entire planet -- could average roughly 10.03 seconds per 100 through a 300? Yeah, and Michael Johnson could have ran a 400 in 41.5 in his prime. :rolleyes:

Um...you are teh one who needs to read the entire thread. You don't even know what you are arguing which is kinda sad....Bison was trying to help you out and it went right over your head, so i tried to help, and again right over your head. You're use of the word stronger is incorrect which was what i was trying to help you understand. A record being stronger has nothign to do with how often it is run. It has to do with how good the record is flat out, nothing to do with frequency being run. There's a difference between stronger and how hard it is to break. THis record is harder to break because it's rarely contested, but the fact that it's rarely contested does not make the record stronger.

And 30.2-30.4, without a doubt. And it would be 10.066. Gotta work on your math buddy. When MJ ran his 30.8 he was no where near the MJ of 1996 olympics when he went 19.32. It would only be logical he was in shape to run 30.2-30.4 in the 300 at that very point in time. How you get 41.5 from that is beyond me and just shows again that you don't know much about sprinting. You make a parallel to what i said, about him droping 1.6 seconds from his 400 pr when i suggest at his best point ever in his career he could have run .4-.6 seconds faster then he did in a meet in March in 2000. Get a grip...

[Anthony]

Um...you are teh one who needs to read the entire thread. You don't even know what you are arguing which is kinda sad....Bison was trying to help you out and it went right over your head, so i tried to help, and again right over your head. You're use of the word stronger is incorrect which was what i was trying to help you understand. A record being stronger has nothign to do with how often it is run. It has to do with how good the record is flat out, nothing to do with frequency being run. There's a difference between stronger and how hard it is to break. THis record is harder to break because it's rarely contested, but the fact that it's rarely contested does not make the record stronger.

And 30.2-30.4, without a doubt. And it would be 10.066. Gotta work on your math buddy. When MJ ran his 30.8 he was no where near the MJ of 1996 olympics when he went 19.32. It would only be logical he was in shape to run 30.2-30.4 in the 300 at that very point in time. How you get 41.5 from that is beyond me and just shows again that you don't know much about sprinting. You make a parallel to what i said, about him droping 1.6 seconds from his 400 pr when i suggest at his best point ever in his career he could have run .4-.6 seconds faster then he did in a meet in March in 2000. Get a grip...
Mrr82, I will ask you yet again: please re-read the thread. You clearly have not. My use of the word "stronger" is not incorrect as apparently we are using it in two completely different concepts. In my concept, "stronger" means less likely of being broken. Is this a hard concept for you to grasp, or do I need to write it in Crayola and put a smiley face on it? If a race is run less, and the record is still tough, wouldn't you call that a "strong" record in two aspects? Please, Mrr82, we've been over this about three times so far in the thread. Get with the program.

My fault, I was doing 30.1 for some reason. Still, I very sincerely doubt he could average 10.07 seconds per 100. And, please, don't talk to me about knowing nothing about sprinting -- that's like a rhino calling a cheetah slow. You've proven time and time again here that you're incapable of making intelligent statements or comprehending basic concepts regarding sprinting or any sort of running, for that matter. Everyone has contributed something intelligent to the thread so far... except you. Again.

[thabreeze]

Both the 200 and 300 WRs are tough obviously. But I don't think that MJ would've ran much faster than his 30.8 in the 300 if he was in 19.32 shape. You have to look at the fact that the Atlanta track was basically made for sprinting. That year he broke the 200 WR in the trials with a 19.66 (+1.7w) and then all of a sudden ran that 19.32. I gotta believe that that WR is more indicative of how fast that track was. Although that 200 WR is tough, I believe that Tyson would've broke that record last year if he had the chance to run on that Atlanta track. He ran 19.62 at the us championships, on a wet track, with a NEGATIVE wind:eek: (i think it was -1.2) That was the single best 200m performance I've ever seen.

[Equinox2100]

Yet again, I already addressed this based on the fact that the 200 time would correct the two turns in the 400 time because no one would maintain their 200 speed through the 300.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore, to be honest.

Im saying that if ANY event were run linear, there would be faster times. If the WR 200/400 runs by MJ were attempted LINEARLY, as in STRAIGHT, w/ no wind, they would be faster. Considerably so.

SO, the reason why it would be EASIER to hold ~10.066 is because there are MORE straights than turns in the 300, making it a MORE linear even than either the 200 or 400. You understand?

Mrr82, I will ask you yet again: please re-read the thread. You clearly have not. My use of the word "stronger" is not incorrect as apparently we are using it in two completely different concepts. In my concept, "stronger" means less likely of being broken. Is this a hard concept for you to grasp, or do I need to write it in Crayola and put a smiley face on it? If a race is run less, and the record is still tough, wouldn't you call that a "strong" record in two aspects? Please, Mrr82, we've been over this about three times so far in the thread. Get with the program.

My fault, I was doing 30.1 for some reason. Still, I very sincerely doubt he could average 10.07 seconds per 100. And, please, don't talk to me about knowing nothing about sprinting -- that's like a rhino calling a cheetah slow. You've proven time and time again here that you're incapable of making intelligent statements or comprehending basic concepts regarding sprinting or any sort of running, for that matter. Everyone has contributed something intelligent to the thread so far... except you. Again.


I know 10.07 sounds fast to you, and it should, but WHY would he NOT be able to run FASTER in his prime?? Use logical, common sense, heuristics, whatever gets you to the right answer. As Mrr82 ACCURATELY said, the 300 WR came when MJ was NOT at his peak.

Peaking = Faster times. If he ran the 300 within a month of the WR 200/400, he would have run FASTER, which, yes, would probably be around 30.mid/high

[pln09]

Mrr82, I will ask you yet again: please re-read the thread. You clearly have not. My use of the word "stronger" is not incorrect as apparently we are using it in two completely different concepts. In my concept, "stronger" means less likely of being broken. Is this a hard concept for you to grasp, or do I need to write it in Crayola and put a smiley face on it? If a race is run less, and the record is still tough, wouldn't you call that a "strong" record in two aspects? Please, Mrr82, we've been over this about three times so far in the thread. Get with the program.

My fault, I was doing 30.1 for some reason. Still, I very sincerely doubt he could average 10.07 seconds per 100. And, please, don't talk to me about knowing nothing about sprinting -- that's like a rhino calling a cheetah slow. You've proven time and time again here that you're incapable of making intelligent statements or comprehending basic concepts regarding sprinting or any sort of running, for that matter. Everyone has contributed something intelligent to the thread so far... except you. Again.

So the 24-hour record is stronger than the 100 record. Gotcha.

[Anthony]

Im saying that if ANY event were run linear, there would be faster times. If the WR 200/400 runs by MJ were attempted LINEARLY, as in STRAIGHT, w/ no wind, they would be faster. Considerably so.

SO, the reason why it would be EASIER to hold ~10.066 is because there are MORE straights than turns in the 300, making it a MORE linear even than either the 200 or 400. You understand?




I know 10.07 sounds fast to you, and it should, but WHY would he NOT be able to run FASTER in his prime?? Use logical, common sense, heuristics, whatever gets you to the right answer. As Mrr82 ACCURATELY said, the 300 WR came when MJ was NOT at his peak.

Peaking = Faster times. If he ran the 300 within a month of the WR 200/400, he would have run FASTER, which, yes, would probably be around 30.mid/high
Last time I checked, the 400 had two straights and the second turn is an extremely fast portion of the race. The whole premise that a 300 is going to be oh so much faster because it has two straights and one curve is bull crap, to be honest. It's not going to make much of a difference. And I never argued that it wouldn't be faster if it were all on a straight. Did I ever even imply that? If I do, I am sorry, because I never intended to imply as much.

And it is NEVER EASY TO HOLD 10.066... EVER! I don't understand why you all are acting like the 300 record is just such a weak record. Last time I checked, no one's even come remotely close to touching it -- same as the 200! And last time I checked, there wasn't a single person in the entire world who trains to break the world record in the 300. Jeremy Wariner certainly won't. Tyson Gay won't. Usain Bolt won't. LaShawn Merrit won't. They have more pressing matters, and none of them are even remotely close to Johnson in terms of both speed and endurance.

The last part of your post has to be some of the worst filth I've ever read. So if he ran the 300 within a few weeks of a WR in the other events, he would've done much better? So why didn't he get a 200 WR right after his 400? Why didn't he get a new 400 WR right after his 200? Why were they so far apart? Geez, maybe it's just the fact that every race is different, and in each of Johnson's three WR performances he was in great shape... each and every time.

I don't think I've ever heard of a sprinter setting a WR in two different events even in the same year, off the top of my head. Why would it have been different for Johnson? He already proved that when he didn't in the 200/400! Those records were well apart.

Here is a fact: Johnson's 300 WR came seven months after his 400 WR. So he suddenly just got extremely slow all of a sudden after seven months? CLEARLY Johnson was nowhere near his prime when he ran the WR 300... I mean, just coming off a WR in the 400. What a loser!

Johnson's WR pace in the 300 -- roughly 10.28 seconds. But, yeah, clearly he could shave that down to 10.07 seconds per 100. That's not much of a difference. I mean, if he made the exact same percentage decrease in his time for the 400, he'd run a 42.27. And in the 200 he'd run a 18.92. Clearly these are all feasible times.

So the 24-hour record is stronger than the 100 record. Gotcha.
Never said that; don't put words in my mouth. I don't even know what you're talking about, to be honest. I said an event that isn't a standard event is going to be harder to break when you don't have people training for it. There aren't people training for the 300 record.

(And the 100 record has always been a weak record. How long did Asafa Powell's world record last... half a year?)

[pln09]

Never said that; don't put words in my mouth. I don't even know what you're talking about, to be honest. I said an event that isn't a standard event is going to be harder to break when you don't have people training for it. There aren't people training for the 300 record.

You said that "in [your] concept, 'stronger' means less likely of being broken."

I simply extrapolated that point. I contend that the 24-hour record is less likely to be broken, and thus, according to your standards, it is "stronger."

[Equinox2100]

Last time I checked, the 400 had two straights and the second turn is an extremely fast portion of the race. The whole premise that a 300 is going to be oh so much faster because it has two straights and one curve is bull crap, to be honest. It's not going to make much of a difference. And I never argued that it wouldn't be faster if it were all on a straight. Did I ever even imply that? If I do, I am sorry, because I never intended to imply as much.

And it is NEVER EASY TO HOLD 10.066... EVER! I don't understand why you all are acting like the 300 record is just such a weak record. Last time I checked, no one's even come remotely close to touching it -- same as the 200! And last time I checked, there wasn't a single person in the entire world who trains to break the world record in the 300. Jeremy Wariner certainly won't. Tyson Gay won't. Usain Bolt won't. LaShawn Merrit won't. They have more pressing matters, and none of them are even remotely close to Johnson in terms of both speed and endurance.

The last part of your post has to be some of the worst filth I've ever read. So if he ran the 300 within a few weeks of a WR in the other events, he would've done much better? So why didn't he get a 200 WR right after his 400? Why didn't he get a new 400 WR right after his 200? Why were they so far apart? Geez, maybe it's just the fact that every race is different, and in each of Johnson's three WR performances he was in great shape... each and every time.

I don't think I've ever heard of a sprinter setting a WR in two different events even in the same year, off the top of my head. Why would it have been different for Johnson? He already proved that when he didn't in the 200/400! Those records were well apart.

Here is a fact: Johnson's 300 WR came seven months after his 400 WR. So he suddenly just got extremely slow all of a sudden after seven months? CLEARLY Johnson was nowhere near his prime when he ran the WR 300... I mean, just coming off a WR in the 400. What a loser!

Johnson's WR pace in the 300 -- roughly 10.28 seconds. But, yeah, clearly he could shave that down to 10.07 seconds per 100. That's not much of a difference. I mean, if he made the exact same percentage decrease in his time for the 400, he'd run a 42.27. And in the 200 he'd run a 18.92. Clearly these are all feasible times.



Bolded what I'm responding to.

First off, you clearly dont understand the Linear argument, so I'm just going to drop it because it's useless trying to explain it to you. Agree to disagree on that I guess.

Secondly, THE ONLY REASON THAT THE 300 RECORD IS SO FAR AHEAD IS THE FACT THAT ****ING NO ONE RUNS THE 300. Thats IT. The spread between the 200 times are greater than that of the 300 times, the more often run event.

Johnson's 300 record being 7 months later in MARCH only proves MY point about the relative weakness of the record. March, for sprinters, is much more of a 'getting in shape' phase than a 'go for the record' phase. That's probably the reason why he ran it in the first place, as a tune up for IAAF recognized distances.

And holding 10.28 for 3 100's in a row is NOTHING for a man who can run 19.32, having the second 100 be 9.2 coming off of a 10.12 first 100 ON A TURN. Here's what it would look like IMO:

10.22
10.10
9.9
EQUALS - 30.22

Something like that. It would be MUCH easier to run a 10.22 straight than a 10.22 on a turn, so don't use the 'BUT HE WENT OUT IN HIS 200 IN A 10.12 HOW CAN HE GO OUT IN HIS 300 IN 10.22??' argument cus its bull****.



Never said that; don't put words in my mouth. I don't even know what you're talking about, to be honest. I said an event that isn't a standard event is going to be harder to break when you don't have people training for it. There aren't people training for the 300 record.

(And the 100 record has always been a weak record. How long did Asafa Powell's world record last... half a year?)
You said that "in [your] concept, 'stronger' means less likely of being broken."

I simply extrapolated that point. I contend that the 24-hour record is less likely to be broken, and thus, according to your standards, it is "stronger."

He owned your logic. Get over it.

[Brumund-Smith]

Anthony, I applaud your efforts on here, and I know this really is a subjective argument...but very very very very very very very few true track fans would agree with you here. The main reason the 300m record isn't as strong is because it was run at altitude! That's why there's a big "A" next to the mark in all the books. Altitude obviously makes a difference, which is why the 1968 Olympics (run at altitude in Mexico City) saw World Records in every single sprint, hurdle, relay and jumping event!

So the altitude alone makes it a much weaker record than the 200m mark. But here's a question I think can help you see the saner side of the argument. Has anybody said to themselves, "Man, Johnson had so much more potential in the 200m. If this and this would have happened, he could have run 19.1"? Does anybody say that? No. In fact, even today, people look at say, "Holy crap, how did he run that fast?" You can look at Johnson's 300m record and say "if" a bunch of times. It is NOT as strong of a record.

[Anthony]

Bolded what I'm responding to.

First off, you clearly dont understand the Linear argument, so I'm just going to drop it because it's useless trying to explain it to you. Agree to disagree on that I guess.

Secondly, THE ONLY REASON THAT THE 300 RECORD IS SO FAR AHEAD IS THE FACT THAT ****ING NO ONE RUNS THE 300. Thats IT. The spread between the 200 times are greater than that of the 300 times, the more often run event.

Johnson's 300 record being 7 months later in MARCH only proves MY point about the relative weakness of the record. March, for sprinters, is much more of a 'getting in shape' phase than a 'go for the record' phase. That's probably the reason why he ran it in the first place, as a tune up for IAAF recognized distances.

And holding 10.28 for 3 100's in a row is NOTHING for a man who can run 19.32, having the second 100 be 9.2 coming off of a 10.12 first 100 ON A TURN. Here's what it would look like IMO:

10.22
10.10
9.9
EQUALS - 30.22

Something like that. It would be MUCH easier to run a 10.22 straight than a 10.22 on a turn, so don't use the 'BUT HE WENT OUT IN HIS 200 IN A 10.12 HOW CAN HE GO OUT IN HIS 300 IN 10.22??' argument cus its bull****.




He owned your logic. Get over it.
So you only respond to what you want because it's the only thing you can argue? Come on, guy.

The 300 world record is not weak by any stretch of the imagination. Don't tell me the only reason it's still there is because it's not run that often. Jeremy Wariner's tried for it now, and LaShawn Merrit's tried for it now. Both are 43 second 400 runners, so don't even dare say no one with talent have tried to break the record. It's simply not true, plain and simple.

And are you freaking serious? Johnson could have closed with a 9.9 second 100 for the 300? Do you know how utterly illogical that is? That's a time most elite 200 runners would kill to finish the straight of their 200 in! You can't simply throw some 100 splits down and say that's what he could have done. You're completely underestimating what kind of race the 300 is, because you're trying to compare it to a 200. Don't, because it's not.

Johnson ran the record to prepare for the upcoming Olympics. It wasn't a "getting in shape" point at that time of the year, as he had the U.S. trials coming right up. Could he have ran it a little faster? Maybe. But 30.2? Do you know how absolutely stupid that is? Please read the times I posted in my last post about what his 200 and 400 world records would be if he ran the exact same percentage faster in those. You don't seem to grasp how hard it is to run at a pace an average of 10.07 seconds. There are tons of world class 200m athletes that can't do that through a 200! Hell, Jeremy Wariner can barely do that through a 200! Do you even grasp what time you're arguing here?

AVERAGE 10.07 IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING FOR ANY ATHLETE IN THE HISTORY OF SPORTS, INCLUDING MICHAEL JOHNSON, OVER 300M. To say otherwise is an outright lie. Again, stop using the 200 for your argument in the 300. The 300 is not the 200! It requires far more speed endurance and strength. No one has ever ran faster than Johnson's world record for a reason.

Stop using the turn argument, because it's bullcrap. The second 100 in a 200 is ALWAYS FASTER because you have a running start. It would be faster regardless of whether it starts on a straight or on a turn.

And he owned my logic? How so? I never said anything about the 24 hour record, so I'm wondering how this argument even came up. I said the 300 record is strong BECAUSE IT IS A STRONG RECORD AND BECAUSE IT'S RAN LESS. Please tell me how you are still having a hard time grasping this concept. I never said the 24 hour record is a strong record. And let me emphasize this point for you all, since you have a hard time comprehending it: I never said a race that's ran less automatically makes it less likely of being broken; I said the 300, which is ran less than the 200 and is still a strong record, is less likely to be broken because it is ran less. (They key thing to note about that sentence -- it is still a strong record, regardless of how much it's ran. It being ran less just makes it that less likely to be broken.)

So stop putting words in my mouth and stop doing anything where you're trying to speak for me. Because I said no such thing. I won't guess on how strong the record in the 24 hour run is, because honestly, I don't know about it. Please re-read his quote by me and tell me where it says that any event that is ran less automatically makes it a strong record -- because I didn't say that.

Anthony, I applaud your efforts on here, and I know this really is a subjective argument...but very very very very very very very few true track fans would agree with you here. The main reason the 300m record isn't as strong is because it was run at altitude! That's why there's a big "A" next to the mark in all the books. Altitude obviously makes a difference, which is why the 1968 Olympics (run at altitude in Mexico City) saw World Records in every single sprint, hurdle, relay and jumping event!

So the altitude alone makes it a much weaker record than the 200m mark. But here's a question I think can help you see the saner side of the argument. Has anybody said to themselves, "Man, Johnson had so much more potential in the 200m. If this and this would have happened, he could have run 19.1"? Does anybody say that? No. In fact, even today, people look at say, "Holy crap, how did he run that fast?" You can look at Johnson's 300m record and say "if" a bunch of times. It is NOT as strong of a record.
Well, I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because I still don't agree. I think the reason a lot of track fans would say the 200 is simply because they see it run more, and they see no one coming close. But no one comes close to his 300 record either, and no one talks about that -- even when people are trying to break the record, such as Wariner.

I don't think you can really look at his record and say "if" at all. I think that was about as good as anyone is going to get when they don't outright train to break the world record. I agree that altitude was a factor, but I still don't think anyone would touch the record -- even at altitude. I can't think of anyone running right now that would even be close, at least.

[Ray_Ray]

Okay so I wasn't aware of the time / date of this 300m Wariner was planning on running and I don't feel like sifting through the spalding gray of crap this thread has become with the dispute about the strength of Johnson's 300m record so has the race been run yet and if yes what was time and if no when is it?

[xcrunna]

I can't think of anyone running right now that would even be close, at least.
Merritt was a 20.1/44.1-2 guy when he ran his mark(31.31). By the end of the year if he can get down to 43.7/19.8 ability(he's already of course 43.9/19.98) then you could spot him maybe just under 31-31.1 if he ran it then. That wouldn't be an altitude either, and it would be close. What do you think?

[Equinox2100]

So you only respond to what you want because it's the only thing you can argue? Come on, guy.

The 300 world record is not weak by any stretch of the imagination. Don't tell me the only reason it's still there is because it's not run that often. Jeremy Wariner's tried for it now, and LaShawn Merrit's tried for it now. Both are 43 second 400 runners, so don't even dare say no one with talent have tried to break the record. It's simply not true, plain and simple.

And are you freaking serious? Johnson could have closed with a 9.9 second 100 for the 300? Do you know how utterly illogical that is? That's a time most elite 200 runners would kill to finish the straight of their 200 in! You can't simply throw some 100 splits down and say that's what he could have done. You're completely underestimating what kind of race the 300 is, because you're trying to compare it to a 200. Don't, because it's not.

Johnson ran the record to prepare for the upcoming Olympics. It wasn't a "getting in shape" point at that time of the year, as he had the U.S. trials coming right up. Could he have ran it a little faster? Maybe. But 30.2? Do you know how absolutely stupid that is? Please read the times I posted in my last post about what his 200 and 400 world records would be if he ran the exact same percentage faster in those. You don't seem to grasp how hard it is to run at a pace an average of 10.07 seconds. There are tons of world class 200m athletes that can't do that through a 200! Hell, Jeremy Wariner can barely do that through a 200! Do you even grasp what time you're arguing here?

AVERAGE 10.07 IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING FOR ANY ATHLETE IN THE HISTORY OF SPORTS, INCLUDING MICHAEL JOHNSON, OVER 300M. To say otherwise is an outright lie. Again, stop using the 200 for your argument in the 300. The 300 is not the 200! It requires far more speed endurance and strength. No one has ever ran faster than Johnson's world record for a reason.

Stop using the turn argument, because it's bullcrap. The second 100 in a 200 is ALWAYS FASTER because you have a running start. It would be faster regardless of whether it starts on a straight or on a turn.

And he owned my logic? How so? I never said anything about the 24 hour record, so I'm wondering how this argument even came up. I said the 300 record is strong BECAUSE IT IS A STRONG RECORD AND BECAUSE IT'S RAN LESS. Please tell me how you are still having a hard time grasping this concept. I never said the 24 hour record is a strong record. And let me emphasize this point for you all, since you have a hard time comprehending it: I never said a race that's ran less automatically makes it less likely of being broken; I said the 300, which is ran less than the 200 and is still a strong record, is less likely to be broken because it is ran less. (They key thing to note about that sentence -- it is still a strong record, regardless of how much it's ran. It being ran less just makes it that less likely to be broken.)

So stop putting words in my mouth and stop doing anything where you're trying to speak for me. Because I said no such thing. I won't guess on how strong the record in the 24 hour run is, because honestly, I don't know about it. Please re-read his quote by me and tell me where it says that any event that is ran less automatically makes it a strong record -- because I didn't say that.


Well, I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because I still don't agree. I think the reason a lot of track fans would say the 200 is simply because they see it run more, and they see no one coming close. But no one comes close to his 300 record either, and no one talks about that -- even when people are trying to break the record, such as Wariner.

I don't think you can really look at his record and say "if" at all. I think that was about as good as anyone is going to get when they don't outright train to break the world record. I agree that altitude was a factor, but I still don't think anyone would touch the record -- even at altitude. I can't think of anyone running right now that would even be close, at least.

Brumund-Smith made an excellent point that you should consider heavier. THe altitude made a VAST difference, which in underestimated when gaging sprints. So much so that the IAAF has to put an A next to the record (like he said in his previous post).

Listen, I'm done talking about this. You made some fairly good points after I skimmed over the personal attacks, and I feel there are strong counter-arguments for each and every one. It seems to me that you're basing a lot of your opinion on your logic than the real numbers, and in that regard Numbers > Logic 100/100 times. I'm not saying logic isnt great or anything, and that breaking this world record would be easy, but I just think you're wrong. That's all there is too it. Disagreement isn't a sign of disrespect, don't take it as such.

[Equinox2100]

Okay so I wasn't aware of the time / date of this 300m Wariner was planning on running and I don't feel like sifting through the spalding gray of crap this thread has become with the dispute about the strength of Johnson's 300m record so has the race been run yet and if yes what was time and if no when is it?

Ran 31.7 not really pushing last 50

http://web.wcsn.com/sport/index.jsp?id=34003

Theres a vid of it on that page

[Ray_Ray]

Ran 31.7 not really pushing last 50

http://web.wcsn.com/sport/index.jsp?id=34003

Theres a vid of it on that page

Thanks.

[Mrr82]

Don't tell me the only reason it's still there is because it's not run that often. Jeremy Wariner's tried for it now, and LaShawn Merrit's tried for it now. Both are 43 second 400 runners, so don't even dare say no one with talent have tried to break the record. It's simply not true, plain and simple..

Wariner right now is a 20.3/43.98 guy. What did you expect? Using htem as examples is completely irrelevant. You should be comparing MJ to MJ when he ran the record and when he was at his best. Any other comparison is stupid. Mj's record is not near as strong as it could have been. There really is no disputing that.

[Anthony]

Wariner right now is a 20.3/43.98 guy. What did you expect? Using htem as examples is completely irrelevant. You should be comparing MJ to MJ when he ran the record and when he was at his best. Any other comparison is stupid. Mj's record is not near as strong as it could have been. There really is no disputing that.
MJ ran the record when he was in his peak physical shape. The facts all point to that. Don't try and deny it.

Could he have ran faster? Maybe slightly. Maybe he would've ran a 30.5-30.6, MAX. But 30.2? Give me a break.

[remiks]

Johnson ran the record to prepare for the upcoming Olympics. It wasn't a "getting in shape" point at that time of the year, as he had the U.S. trials coming right up. Could he have ran it a little faster? Maybe. But 30.2? Do you know how absolutely stupid that is? Please read the times I posted in my last post about what his 200 and 400 world records would be if he ran the exact same percentage faster in those. You don't seem to grasp how hard it is to run at a pace an average of 10.07 seconds. There are tons of world class 200m athletes that can't do that through a 200! Hell, Jeremy Wariner can barely do that through a 200! Do you even grasp what time you're arguing here?

Olympic year or not, you and I both know that Michael Johnson isn't running his best in early March in a South African 300m race. I'm of the opinion that 30.2 would be absurd, but certainly, it's easy to see that the 300m record could definitely be lowered if run more frequently. I could see Wariner running 31.2 or faster at his best, he's run faster than 31.7 en-route to a 400m before, perhaps faster at Altitude. And if Merritt continues to improve, he has the potential to dip under 31 given his superior 200m speed.

EDIT: It's also worth noting, and I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned, that MJ ran that 300m ALL alone: Zetenyi Dombi (who?) at 32.73 was second, almost a full two seconds behind him.

[Brumund-Smith]

MJ ran the record when he was in his peak physical shape. The facts all point to that. Don't try and deny it.

Could he have ran faster? Maybe slightly. Maybe he would've ran a 30.5-30.6, MAX. But 30.2? Give me a break.

Right there you're admitting that the record could be stronger. Has anybody ever thought the 200m record could be stronger? Absolutely not.

So which record overall is stronger? The 200m! You practically just answered that yourself.

[Anthony]

Right there you're admitting that the record could be stronger. Has anybody ever thought the 200m record could be stronger? Absolutely not.

So which record overall is stronger? The 200m! You practically just answered that yourself.
I admit Michael Johnson could have ran faster, yes. But to say I think the record is weaker than the 200 record is completely different. It's going to be centuries before we see someone with the capabilities of Michael Johnson in both the 200 and 400... hence why it's going to be a while before it's broken. It'll probably take someone faster than Johnson at both distances, or at least remarkably close.