Fred kerley 19.79

christina brocolli wrote:

paris2024hawk wrote:

No coleman will come back with a 9.6 and win worlds. He's been training to maintain his fitness I dont think he will come back rusty. I could be wrong though, but he was only gone for two years not 4 and he's not coming back from an injury.

Is Coleman off the drugs or using more than ever?

And kerley is clearly a doper.

Kerley might be the cleanest sprinter we have right now.

Kerley is having a great year. I wonder whether he could throw down a 43 mid or better as well with the short sprint training. Now that he has 19.79 to go with 9.84, I'll bet he can in good conditions and with competition pushing him. Too bad that Norman's having a down year.

Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:

William Faulkner is 2nd Rate wrote:

Michael Norman- 9.86, 19.70, 43.45. But Kerley has the medals so it's clear who the better runner is.

WVN is sub-20 and sub-10 too.

They have remarkably similar PRs ...

Norman/Kerley

9.86/9.84

19.70/19.79

43.45/43,64

Johnson

10.89/19.32/43.18

wrong on johnson....he has a 10.09 100m....its in his book "slaying the dragon" plus its right here, lazy a$$ lying LRers

so its

10.09/19.32/43.18

and his 10.09 was in 1994, and that year his times looked like this

10.09/19.94/43.90

1995 looked like this

19.79/43.39....so one would have to think his 100 was sub ten that year

1996 looked like this

19.32/43.44 again his 100 had to have been sub 10, there isnt any way around it

97

20.05/43.75

98

20.31/43.68 his 200 was 2nd of may so early in the season and his 400 was august 12th

99

19.93/43.18

so from what we can conclude is MJ was prob 9.8mids, 19.32. 43.18, based off the fact that he did 10.09/19.94/43.90 two years before his 19.32 smashing.

seeing how anyone else who has run 19.80 or faster has 9.8 or faster foot speed, he was 9.84 is what i would guess.

It weird most people think Micheal Johnson didn't go sub 10 because he couldn't, he just didn't run many 100s. He clearly had the talent to go atleast 9.95 in 1996 and that's without specific training.

Mikeh33 wrote:

VroomVroom wrote:

If Newman was his normal self he’d of run 19.5 on these tracks. What a year to not be your best.

Coleman as well lol. He’s got to be pissed sitting at home. On these tracks with the super spikes he could put a scare into Bolts 9.59. Damn wish he would of been able to run this year. The women are going two tenths faster than they ever have. That’d put Coleman in the 9.5s easily.

Gotta say I’m glad he didn’t run, as much fun as he is to watch. What, he missed three urine tests? What are the chances he’s clean with that sort of record?

Likewise I was very glad Coleman was out. First Olympics during his young prime and he misses multiple tests. That means he's either unclean or a supreme idiot.

I really like Kerley but there is no such thing as sprint decathlon. It's far preferable to be awesome at one distance than among the best at several of them.

I think 400 is best for him. At 100 and 200 there's always going to be a pure sprinter getting the jump on him, just like Miller-Uibo at 200 on the women's side. At 400 there's more margin for error and the big frame long striding types are rewarded.

Remember Johnson raced Donovan Bailey in over 150m because at the time they were saying that Johnson was the fastest man on earth, not Donovan.

So they made a 150m event at the Skydome in Toronto, and Johnson faked an injury after it was clear he was losing, feigning a hamstring.

Donovan Bailey was mad, said "I'll kick his ass one more time!" After Johnson pulled up lame.

So Johnson was fast, but the pure 100m guys like Bailey were faster. We can't think Johnson could have competed there. World Record and Olympic winning time in 96 was 9.84 I believe. That's way behind his 10.09.

Well kerley is the an Olympic medalist at 100 and a world champs medalist at 400m and still figuring out the 200m, I think he'll hit 9.78 19.6 and a 42.9- 43.1 in the 400m next year so he'll be great at all 3.

A strong 100m and 200m only helps a 400m sprinter.

Roflcopter wrote:

Remember Johnson raced Donovan Bailey in over 150m because at the time they were saying that Johnson was the fastest man on earth, not Donovan.

So they made a 150m event at the Skydome in Toronto, and Johnson faked an injury after it was clear he was losing, feigning a hamstring.

Donovan Bailey was mad, said "I'll kick his ass one more time!" After Johnson pulled up lame.

So Johnson was fast, but the pure 100m guys like Bailey were faster. We can't think Johnson could have competed there. World Record and Olympic winning time in 96 was 9.84 I believe. That's way behind his 10.09.

a few problems

one johnson ran his 10.09 in 94, not 96 or summer of 97 (when the 150 race was)

two johnsons splits in the 19.32 race was 10.12/9.20

so he damn near hit his PR in route on the curve.

look at bolts 200 WRs with splits and his PR that year

19.30

9.98/9.32

9.69

a .29 difference from his split and his PR that season

19.19

9.92/9.27

9.58

a .34 difference from this split and PR that season

average it to .32, so lets say MJ was .32 difference in 1996

that gives you a 9.80, like i said he was a 9.84 guy in 96, if he would have run the 100 all season like kerly did

Johnson was juiced to the gills and still got embarrassed internationally by Donovan Bailey in their race.

Or maybe Michael Johnson pulled a hamstring in that race.

Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:

Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:

They have remarkably similar PRs ...

Norman/Kerley

9.86/9.84

19.70/19.79

43.45/43,64

Johnson

10.89/19.32/43.18

WVN

9.94/19.84/43.03

Wayde’s 100 and 200 at altitude though I think

paris2024hawk wrote:

It weird most people think Micheal Johnson didn't go sub 10 because he couldn't, he just didn't run many 100s. He clearly had the talent to go atleast 9.95 in 1996 and that's without specific training.

MJ did barely any top speed in training so he was an injury rush when he tried a 100.

I don't know wrote:

Was Coleman running with the "super spikes" before his ban? He could come back and drop some ridiculous times.

No he wasn't running with super spikes. He didn't need them as he was running with super drugs.

William Faulkner is 2nd Rate wrote:

Michael Norman- 9.86, 19.70, 43.45. But Kerley has the medals so it's clear who the better runner is.

WVN is sub-20 and sub-10 too.

Or it's clear it has been a soft year for the 100 and 400.

Watching all these people running in the mid 19s for 200 (faster than Kerley) tells me the 200 WR is soft too. Used to be common wisdom that it should be less than twice the 100m WR.

Bad Wigins wrote:

William Faulkner is 2nd Rate wrote:

Michael Norman- 9.86, 19.70, 43.45. But Kerley has the medals so it's clear who the better runner is.

WVN is sub-20 and sub-10 too.

Or it's clear it has been a soft year for the 100 and 400.

Watching all these people running in the mid 19s for 200 (faster than Kerley) tells me the 200 WR is soft too. Used to be common wisdom that it should be less than twice the 100m WR.

It was so soft a year for the 4 that Norman couldn’t medal. Kerley could and did in the 100.

It was a soft year in both events, but only one of the two athletes rose up and ran to his optimum.

And the 200 record is about as soft as the Los Angeles River.

I think the 200m record is very strong some people can run less than twice their 100m pr but not that many.

Only 3 people have run 19 mid this year.

The 400m was softer this year, but not the 100m.

Impossible for the 100-200-400-800-1500-5k to be soft because they are saturated and run often. 400H and steeplechase and mile could be weak. 10k could be a but weaker than 5k.

I have heard it straight from his own mouth that he didn't run the 100m because that was his secret to obliterating the competition. His jump in performance was from focusing on the 100m, while not racing it to not give it away.