MICHAEL NORMAN 9.86!!!! (1.6)

I am not his coach! But there is documented evidence of him saying he wants to run the 100m but his coaches think it is somewhat irresponsible when he is #3 all time in his main event. Just because you think that makes them bad coaches, it does not change the reality of the situation that he simply was not allowed to run the 100 because of his coaches. I have wanted them to let him run it for years, because I do think that is silly for him not run the 100 when he is clearly so good at it.

Now he has proven himself, so the fact that people are still doubting his ability as one of the best 100m runners ever (I think he is perhaps one of the fastest clean humans in history over any distance 100m-400m) frustrates me. Especially because people think this is a fluke. When he runs 9.80 or something even crazier, then people will start talking about drugs. Just look at how the dude runs! He is no less of a genetic outlier than Usain Bolt. I would say that Bolt, Norman, and Miller-Uibo stand out as modern sprinters with freakishly tall frames and an ability to turnover that most other humans their height lack.

All top natural sprinters are genetic outliers. Neither Dolt nor Norman were or are outliers from the outliers.

And yes, as soon as he goes wind-legal 9.80 or better I will start talking about drugs, if the wind reading was believable.

Of course Norman is an amazing sprinter, at all distances—but you have been conditioned by the users of the past decade to believe that 9.86 is relatively normal. It is not.

Any 9.86 needs confirmation, unless it is at a major. Everyone else’s 9.8 anomalies are questioned—Thompson, Fasuba, Rodgers, etc etc etc. Most of them have questionable wind, as I believe might this 9.86. More than a few of them have been canceled.

Stop whining. Like I said, everyone wants this to be true. I personally want it to be true because I want to see multiple athletes wipe the floor with CC, if possible. Lyles and Norman beating him would be excellent.

Yeah... something is a little funky there. I don't doubt the times, but by the video it sounds like the wind is stronger than 1.6. As was the case with Flo Jo's 100m record, there's no way to confirm the gauge was working properly, or that the operator was on the level.

Either way, the times are already on the IAAF site (now world athletics).

https://www.worldathletics.org/records/toplists/sprints/100-metres/outdoor/men/senior/2020

I don’t have any faith in either the times or the wind. The smoke from the gun just takes off sideways, and the times are all over the place.

Yeah I know, they jogged. Sure, some did—but the times are still all over the place. When I was fast (and not as fast as these guys), a coasted 100 meant sub-11.

I see no particular reason to have any faith in these results, because such faith isn’t needed. Instead, we can just wait for confirmation. There is no penalty for healthy skepticism. Nobody is devastated because they view Thompson’s 9.82 with skepticism, or because they view that entire Eugene race with skepticism.

When is the next 100m for Norman and/or Benjamin?

Sprintgeezer wrote:

All top natural sprinters are genetic outliers. Neither Dolt nor Norman were or are outliers from the outliers. ....

I agree with the first sentence, for sure. I just don't see how anyone can suggest Usain wasn't an outlier among outliers. Watch him in Beijing 08 and Berlin 09 again.

Even if you take the one of him doping (which I know you do) he was yards ahead of the some of the greatest sprinters the role has ever seen ... a number of whom also tested positive. Anyone not named Steven Bradbury who wins a WC or an OG by that kind of margin is an outlier.

That doesn’t mean he was a genetic outlier.

At 15-17 he was a sort of genetic outlier for being so tall, so early.

There's nothing cool or cute about accusing Gatlin of continued doping. The fact is that he was caught twice, and that convicted dopers usually do it again if they get a chance to compete again. Even students caught plagiarizing on papers do it again. Recidivism is so common because the cheaters do it with knowledge of the rules and penalties already, so they have an internal belief that they have the right to cheat.

When I use the term outlier, I am not talking about general genetic superiority. Most athletes discussed on these boards are obviously genetic outliers, else they'd have a different profession. The sprinters I mentioned are uniquely dominant because of their long limbs and their ability to overcome the biomechanical baggage of those long limbs to take full advantage of their stride length. I do not think a 9.86 is a trivial or commonplace performance. I am arguing that the timing was accurate and Michael Norman is inherently one of the fastest people (in an absolute sense, no qualifications) of all time.

Of course I agree that it is entirely possible that he is one of the fastest clean 100m guys of all-time—I just don’t think that this race proves it.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Of course I agree that it is entirely possible that he is one of the fastest clean 100m guys of all-time—I just don’t think that this race proves it.

Well, I wouldn't say it is "proof," but I would say it is certainly strong evidence when you consider it in the context of his entire career, as I've said.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Of course I agree that it is entirely possible that he is one of the 100m guys of all-time—I just don’t think that this race proves it.

Your post is such a word salad: entirely possible, fastest clean, I just don’t think.

You are foolish. Please explain what the real reason is you hate Norman so much.

Here watch Norman crush everyone, making up the stagger on multiple runners, on the first leg of the 2015 California State 4x100m final. It is not the best video but it is obvious the start speed has always been there. Even the blind can see it: Sprintgeezer excluded.

FYI: His teammates dropped the baton on the last exchange so there is no meet result for a time (DNF).

entirely possible??? wrote:

Your post is such a word salad: entirely possible, fastest clean, I just don’t think.

You are foolish. Please explain what the real reason is you hate Norman so much.

I see you posted your explanation on another thread.

Sprintgeezer wrote: "Thus far, 9.9 and 19.8 are in fact the demonstrated best for white sprinters. ... I would also argue that they are essentially the demonstrated best for clean sprinters."

Yup. Only white guys can be clean. And 9.9 is the best that is "humanly" possible. Got it. (Some people cannot see themselves when there is a mirror in the way.)

I'm more surprised a 400m hurdler has the potential to run sub 10.

JumpsDoctor wrote:

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Of course I agree that it is entirely possible that he is one of the fastest clean 100m guys of all-time—I just don’t think that this race proves it.

Well, I wouldn't say it is "proof," but I would say it is certainly strong evidence when you consider it in the context of his entire career, as I've said.

Given the time, the fact that he hasn’t dedicated to the 100, the time during the season, the level of the meet, the smoke from the gun, the times put up by other athletes, a 400 hurdler going almost 10-flat, etc, it is IMO some evidence, but not strong evidence. His best 200 is much better evidence.

That’s all you’ve got? Lol you’ll have to do better than that.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

That’s all you’ve got? Lol you’ll have to do better than that.

You have already forgotten your post of 40 minutes ago about 9.9 and 19.8 being the limits of clean human speed ... because those is the "arguable" the limits of white guys. #sad #cantseehimselfinthemorror

So, provide "your alternative explanation" for why you hate Norman so much?

Lol, so lame.?

entirely possible??? wrote:

Sprintgeezer wrote:

That’s all you’ve got? Lol you’ll have to do better than that.

You have already forgotten your post of 40 minutes ago about 9.9 and 19.8 being the limits of clean human speed ... because those is the "arguable" the limits of white guys. #sad #cantseehimselfinthemorror

So, provide "your alternative explanation" for why you hate Norman so much?

Considering that 9.86 (+1.6) is equal to 9.94 (+0.0), then I would say this run by Norman qualifies as well within the supposed "9.9" human speed limit.

Personally I'm not sure I prescribe to such a limit. But I'm just saying, Not all 9.8s are equal.

entirely possible??? wrote:

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Of course I agree that it is entirely possible that he is one of the 100m guys of all-time—I just don’t think that this race proves it.

Your post is such a word salad: entirely possible, fastest clean, I just don’t think.

You are foolish. Please explain what the real reason is you hate Norman so much.

Here watch Norman crush everyone, making up the stagger on multiple runners, on the first leg of the 2015 California State 4x100m final. It is not the best video but it is obvious the start speed has always been there. Even the blind can see it: Sprintgeezer excluded.

FYI: His teammates dropped the baton on the last exchange so there is no meet result for a time (DNF).

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

I don’t think he hates Norman. He just can’t accept that sprinters can run faster than arbitrary times he made up in his head, loosely based around the fact that he used to sprint so can’t imagine someone running 9.8.

The reality is like I stated in another thread a while ago. The 100m is generally a weaker event compared to some events like the 1500 or 5000m all time. Only a few names dominate the top 50 performances all time. Football and other sports steal away potentially great sprinters.

9.86 is a great run but 9.90 should probably be the standard by which we view 10.0 at the moment.