Bolt strongly considering 400, LJ at 2016 Games in Rio

* wrote:

Xavier Carter won an NCAA title in the 100 and the 400 in the same meet.

10.09 and 44.53

He eventually ran 10.00

Bolt has already put in years of 400m training and dropped down the 100.

So moving back up to the 400 is not a big leap for him.

Michael Johnson was a 200m runner who moved up.

Don't see how Bolt's faster 100m time means he would be more limited at the 400.

There really is very little data of elite short sprinters even trying to compete in the 400.

Carter focused on the 200m, same as Johnson, Bolt does not. He even said some himself.

Lagat Fan wrote:

There's a reason why the 1500m WR like Seb Coe couldn't crack 46, just like MJ couldn't crack 10.

And that reason is simply not enough attempts and nothing to do with their physical limitations/specializations. Coe ran 46.1 despite only rarely running the 400 and MJ ran 10.09 (or was it .07?) despite rarely running the 100. Had they both made it a more than annual thing (say bi-weekly for a season), they both would have broke those barriers? Had Coe only ran the 800 in actual races twice per year he would never have broke 1:45 and had MJ did the same with the 200 he never would have broke 20.

I think the comments that Bolt's SPEED or EXPLOSIVENESS is a LIABILITY in the 400 says it all about so many of the users of this site.

There's so much over-thinking here, so much reliance on this or that formula, that you've forgotten the very essence of this sport: Be as strong and as fast as you f**king can!

It doesn't just apply to the 400, though. I KNOW there are distance runners on this site who won't go more than 85% in a speed workout, or won't do an extra pullup or pushup (do you guys even do those? wouldn't want to get too tired before that next workout! but wait, what's even the point of the workout? to get stronger? but...the pushup will help with that too...)

It's so easy to get caught up in all these theories -- trust me, I used to do it all the time -- but it's simply not the point of the sport. Same with those stupid wussy sit-and-kick races.

So how can I make this more clear?

SPEED IS NOT A LIABILITY IN SPRINTS, JUMPS, OR DISTANCE

STRENGTH IS NOT A LIABILITY IN SPRINTS, JUMPS, OR DISTANCE

He should do the 400m and 4x400m. He has run 30.97 for the 300m. MJ's record is 30.85. With more 400m specific training he can do it.

100/200 will be owned by Yohan Blake in Rio.

Watch this video and tell me he shouldn't move up to the 400:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGN3knX1kSQ

30.97 in the rain.

MSChemE wrote:

Probably too lazy and shiftless to train for a 43 second race.

People calling him lazy and saying he can't do it might be all the motivation he needs.

He's tasted alcohol so my bet is that he won't be in Rio. He might be a commentator, though.

If his coach can't keep him away from the British women, he has no chance in Brazil.

It Has to be said. wrote:

.....

100/200 will be owned by Yohan Blake in Rio.

That's a ridiculous comment .. Rio is 4 years away. Go back to Athens 2004 and tell me you would have suggested someone named Usain Bolt would own the 100m in Beijing. 4 years from now the 100m/200m could be owned by someone you've never even heard of.

It Has to be said. wrote:

Watch this video and tell me he shouldn't move up to the 400:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGN3knX1kSQ

30.97 in the rain.

Because kirani is better, and Santos is Kirani a year younger. He wants to win so moving up would lower his chances.

Source for Coe running 46.1? Official best is 46.87 from 1979. MJ's 100 best was 10.09 but the year he made the US champs final in the 100 he got injured in the process.

Another long jumper who was fast as shizzle, by the way, was Larry Myricks, who had a 20.03 PR for 200. He won the US champs in 1988 in the 200 when the US champs and the Olympic trials were separate meets.

To say that 19.32 is higher quality than 43.18 is proof enough that you have no idea what you're talking about.

O.o wrote:

To say that 19.32 is higher quality than 43.18 is proof enough that you have no idea what you're talking about.

O.o, without attacking the supporting analysis, your statement is completely vapid b.s.

Please attack the analysis I posted. I know that I don't know everything, and I'd love to hear a good counter-argument.

Yes, I know about Phillips. He was never an elite 100m guy.

Lewis was the real anomaly, along with a doped Dreschler in recent memory, and to a lesser extent Marion.

O.o wrote:

To say that 19.32 is higher quality than 43.18 is proof enough that you have no idea what you're talking about.

The 19.32 is a much better record than the 43.18, because of the fact that more people have gotten close to the 400m one than the 200, so I agree with geezer in that regard. At the same time saying that because he broke a harder record already means breaking an easier one is a given, is false. That's like me answering a hard question and getting the easy one wrong. I might just be better at the hard one, the same way Bolt is better at the 200m than the 400m. So really that is a weak argument.

I would just like to point out that VenTard is, in his own words, a moron.

The suggestion that .04 in 60m is worth .08 in 100m is laughable, and Bolt's splits from London compared to his splits from Berlin prove it:

http://deportes.elpais.com/deportes/2012/08/06/juegos_olimpicos/1344284896_730368.html

Click to enlarge the graphic on the page.

Add up the RT's and splits from Berlin and London respectively, and his 20m splits are 2.89 and 2.93 respectively, which is .04 difference over the first 20, like I said. The difference remained .04 at both 60m and 80m, 6.31 to 6.35 at 60m and 7.92 to 7.96 at 80m.

The 20-40m and 40-60m splits see-sawed with only .01 difference in each split, the 60-80m splits were identical, and the 80-100m split was only .01 different. .04 of the .05 ultimate difference was in the first 20m, other than that, the sprints were essentially identical.

Like I said, his 9.63 was his 9.58 re-created with a .04 worse first 20m.

As though any more evidence were needed that VenTard is deficient.

SkyArt--

You are of course correct, which is why I tried to strengthen that weak argument by pointing out that it was the same individual athlete who Bolt would have to beat as he had already beaten. The underlying premise is that there is no demonstrated reason that I have seen, to suspect that Bolt is any relatively worse at 400 than at 200, than was MJ.

Remember, Bolt is training 200 now and not 400, and runs in the 200 what Johnson ran in the 200 at essentially the same time that he ran his 43.18 To me, that suggests that Johnson might have gone 19.19 in the 200, had he sacrificed his 400m training as Bolt has done, and that the two of them could therefore have the same 200m potential.

So, I think that the suggestion that because Bolt has the 200m WR he will be relatively worse at the 400m than was MJ is untenable, as I don't think we ever saw MJ's full 200m potential demonstrated.

That's why I think that the fact that it is the same athlete suggests that Bolt could break the 400 record, especially if he ditched his 200m training and concentrated on 400m training, same as he broke MJ's 200 record by concentrating on 200m training and ditching his 400m training.

Unless you mean without wind, then yes. Also have you considered that wind has a bigger effect in the later stages of the race then in the beginning?

rupp-certified saladbar wrote:

I really can't recall any great Jamaican jumpers.

Your Intellectual Superior wrote:

That's because there ain't been any. Nice logical deduction there Watson.

You are a total goddamned idiot. Read more slowly next time.