Racist? Greg Rutherford stomps Mo Farah in online vote for British Athlete of the Year

cant think of a cleaner possible male champ from worlds or olympics bar some strength events, none on track

a natural

VoR wrote:Is "fouled by trivial amount" a brand new concept in the long jump? I don't remember encountering it before

a trivial amount so small that he appealed it wasn't a foul

clearly the concept that triviality may in fact be a legal jump is beyond you

And if he'd jumped 9.20 he'd have a new world record

wow !

you seem to have a vague clue about the lj wr

Unless he fouled by a non-trivial amount I suppose

nonsense

i am concerned with trivial amounts which may be legit jump

if he insisted on getting it measured & then took the video to appeal judges to get their decision for a reversal of foul

In the real world, however, his personal best is still shorter than Rutherford's winning jump in the final in Beijing

quite clearly the concept of intrinsic talent is alien to you

dwight had "only" 8.74m pb

that makes him only tied 5th best jumper ever

then if you had some clue about intrinsic talent, you wouda noted he did that into a 1.2 wind on a cold day

just 0 wind that day he wouda gone ~ 8.85m & with a decent legal wind of ~ 1.2 wouda broken the wr & that's not offering him anything for the cold weather

accounting for wind/cold, that is the best legal jump in history, wouda been well over 9m on a warm day in the 80sF with just a +1.2, but he only gets a 8.74m for his efforts

learn something about intrinsic talent...

1 other factor :

the unfortunate front-on vid doesn't show how much dwight gave away on the board whilst in powell's wr, he gave away 3cm

ventolin^3 wrote:

a trivial amount so small that he appealed it wasn't a foul

clearly the concept that triviality may in fact be a legal jump is beyond you

You're absolutely correct. The concept that fouling by a trivial amount and then appealing makes a jump legal is quite beyond me.

quite clearly the concept of intrinsic talent is alien to you

The competition isn't about "intrinsic talent". It is about actual performances.

But if I was so amazingly intrinsicly talented and able to jump far longer than those other idiots I think I'd remove any "trivial amount" speculation from the equation by leaving myself a margin of a few centimeters at the plate. At least until I had the competition sewn up.

... and if I wasn't able to do that then maybe I wasn't actually as intrinsicly talented as I thought I was.

wouda ... wouda ... wouda ... wouda

Sigh.

clearly the concept that a foul may not be a foul is beyond you

you clearly coudn't comprehend the vid where dendy said that

"the abbrieviation on the plasticine didn't match my shoe"

indicating the contested indentation was from a previous jumper & plastiscine incompletely smoothed out for his jump

wow !!!

thanks for informing the whole world about this

i'm sure 99%+++ of posters weren't aware of this until you informed us

you clearly don't know about dendy or the event

he has an 8.39pb which is not great but good enough in this poor era

he probably didn't realise he was in immensely better shape than 8.39 in meet & couda missed the the board completely & easily qualified, but thinking he wasn't good enough to play it safe with aim of tough 8.15m auto-qualifiying distance after 1 foul & 7.78m, he put in full effort jump

clearly he shouda known he was in incredible shape & played it safe but didn't

clueless

in jumps, intrinsic talent is the toe-sand distance

measured distance & subsequent results is another matter

blah, blah, blah

pitiful...

Mo will never be thought of by the public as truly British. He is a Lennox Lewis or Greg Rusedski, not a Frank Bruno or Tim Henman; he wasn't born in the uk, doesn't live in the uk, and came off as a bit of a dick with his argument on twitter.

It's not racism though - Greg Rutherford winning is a breakthrough for gingers who are usually maligned as being devil spoor in Britain.

ventolin^3 wrote:

greg got lucky the 2 americans fouled their best jump by trivial amounts

dendy looked to have launched a 8.60 in qualifying which he protested was legit :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNBp3uEoaI4

here is jump :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdxHfNpXC2Y

they robbed him of shot in the final, where if he'd matched 8.60 in any of his 6 jumps he wouda blown away greg

He should buy lottery tickets. He gets lucky a lot in big time competition.

Fouling is not an excuse its a weakness

coach d wrote:

Rutherford is an athlete and Farah is a protected drugged-up fitness jogger with 12.9 speed, slower than a lot of high school girls. Simple.

Did someone just steal your handle coach d, or are you really that much of a loser?

He moved to England when he was 8, he is a grown man now. How does that not make him British? What about his double Olympic Golds in 2012, or his work in this year's Worlds. Those do not count for Team GB?

mlcollll wrote:He should buy lottery tickets. He gets lucky a lot in big time competition

eh ?

he got hammered in moscow in '13

that just indicates when there is a good talent who jumps somewhere near their top ability, he loses

Fouling is not an excuse its a weakness

not when it is not a foul as dendy strongly argued

So what you're saying champ, is that when Rutherford bombed out in Moscow it's because he's rubbish, but the American disasters in Beijing were unlucky and they deserved to win?

clearly you can't think

dendy had a highly debated foul in 8.60 region which if anywhere close in final wouda crushed the field

rutherford was just plain crap in moscow or did you see a 8.60 foul there for him ???

ventolin^3 wrote:

clearly you can't think

dendy had a highly debated foul in 8.60 region which if anywhere close in final wouda crushed the field

rutherford was just plain crap in moscow or did you see a 8.60 foul there for him ???

Part of long jumping is not bottling it.

Dendy bottled it, so therefore he still has zero medals at international level (and will continue to do so until he stops choking.)

Rutherford generally doesn't bottle it, so therefore he's won a lot (and makes you cry).

trollism wrote:Part of long jumping is not bottling it

yes

Dendy bottled it

drivel

hitting the board right on the limit is not bottling it

it is trying to be too ultra-precise

he couda missed the board entirely & wouda still comfortably qualified for final with that jump

bottling it woud be having half his foot over the board, not right on limit of board which he protested was a legit jump as marginal plastiscine mark on board he claimed did not match his shoe

so therefore he still has zero medals at international level (and will continue to do so until he stops choking.)

0 medals so far but only 2y as top-level jumper

he will rectify that next year & to claim choking for right-on-limit of board is utter nonsense

Rutherford generally doesn't bottle it

moscow was big bottling

so therefore he's won a lot (and makes you cry)

mostly because menkov badly injured for '14 & only recovering partly in '15

he won moscow gold with 8.56pb which is sign of highest class & it's a good possibilty he will get back to his best form next year which makes greg's chances of gold much reduced, especially with dendy learning from his mistake & henderson who went 8.36 in qualifying, all thrown into mix

Did he only have 1 jump in qualifying or something?

What happened in the other two?

trollism wrote:Did he only have 1 jump in qualifying or something?

eh ???

if you are that stoopid to ask...

What happened in the other two?

incredible shape

clearly US jumpers not too familiar with conditions

it took the Legendary Taylor, helluva lotta jumps in qualifying/medal to nail a jump off crap-wind

you gotta problem with US horizontal jumpers incredible talent ???

"it is trying to be too ultra-precise"

Redundant much?

no

it is requisite for mega-talents with little experience...

ventolin^3 wrote:

clearly the concept that a foul may not be a foul is beyond you

If you spoke proper English you would understand what that poster is trying to tell you.

What you wrote above makes no sense. If is IS a foul that's because it IS a foul. Clear so far?

If it's a suspected foul, it MAY BE (OR NOT) a foul.

But having a calm, unbiased, polite conversation is beyond you...