> >Here is the thing you leave out though in your American ignorance.
> >Donovan Bailey ran his 100 m out of a still start, whereas Johnson's
> >second 100 m was run from a flying start....as in he was already moving
> TRUE, BUT THE THAT LOGIC APPLIES TO THE WOMEN TOO &
> GAIL DEVERS RAN THE 100 METER WITH A HIGHER M.P.H.
> THAN PEREC IN THE 200 METER RACE !! SO THAT BLOWS YOUR
> THEORY ABOUT THE "ADVANTAGE OF THE 200 HAVE A FLYING
> START IN THE SECOND 100 METERS !! IN FACT, FLO-JO RAN A
> 10.49 100 METER & NO FEMALE RUNNER HAS COME CLOSE IN
> THE 200 METER IN M.P.H. FURTHER BLOWING YOUR THEORY
> BUB !!!!!
Firstly, the BUB comment is pityful, you are not dealing with a moron
that rants out of ignorance.
Secondly, Men's and women's events are separate....keep them that way.
There is a matter of pacing involved and in Johnson's case, he was able
to maintain his speed over the full 200m as opposed to the world class
women that can't maitain top speed over that distance.
Thirdly, no woman has ever come close to matching the 10.49 in the 100 m
either, you failed to mention that...I mean a whopping .4 seconds
difference between Flo-Jo and this year's winner....the juice paid off huh?
> >The title of World's Fastest Human ALWAYS goes to the winner of the 100 m
> >this is because it requires the most acceleration and makes you get to
> >the highest speed as fast as possible.
> Not true, BUB !!! The men also run a 50 & 60 meter race in the indoor season
> & those races require even faster acceleration than the 100 meter !!!
Again with the BUB huh? Name calling gonna prove your point?
50 and 60 meter races are run because indoor tracks are not as long and a
straight away only reaches 60 meters. They are not long enough to allow
a runner to obtain his top speed, they are more for flat out come outta
the blocks and get there.
When running in the Olympics, Bailey only reached top speed at the 60-70
meter mark and then blew by the competition. (his top Speed was clocked
at just over 27 MpH whereas Johnson's was 23 MpH
(side note: Donovan bailey set the world record in the 50 and 60 m events
over this past winter....immediately followed by US broadcasters and
track commitees being so pityful as to refuse to accept the record for
weeks because the time was just too fast...he had to have had a flase
start...until the 1000000th video replay proved it was legal and they had
no choice but to accept it (the 1000000 was an exageration before you
respond to that)
> >The ONLY reason there is even a debate here is because the Americans did
> >not place anyone in the top 3, had Dennis Mitchell won, he would have
> >been given the title hands down. The rest of the World recognizes the
> >true World's fastest human, America needs it's own hero so they improvised...
> >Had Johnson not won, it would have been up to the 400, then the 800, then
> >etc until they won one
> Wrong again, BUB !! Unless of course, our 400 meter or 800 meter runner
> had the HIGHEST M.P.H. !!!! In which case they would have been the
> FASTEST MAN ALIVE !!!
Sorry "Bub" But 27 MpH is higher than 23 MpH. Your point is invalid
> >> bailey by contrast broke the 100 meter record by
> >> the smallest of margins of .01 seconds !!!!
> >.01 seconds in the 100 m is a HUGE margin
> Wrong again !!! .01 is the SMALLEST margin that is
> possible to break a record !!!!!!!!!! By contrast
> MICHAEL"SUPERMAN"JOHNSON broke the
> 17 year old record twice by .4 of a second - a full
> 40 times what bailey broke the 100 by !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Time to take you to school in the world of track and field apparently.
In the marathon, it is not uncommon to see the winning time be several
seconds or even a minute faster than second place. In the 800 meters, it
can reach almost a second depending on the caliber.
When you get to the 200M it drops again to about .3 or so
In the 100M .3 seconds can often be the difference between first and 8th
place. Bailey broke the world record, so he ran the fastest time in the
legal history of the event. (First what difference does it make how much
he broke it by....he BROKE it, that is the point. Second, his time was
only .3 seconds faster than last place. That says right there that .01
seconds in the race can be a huge margin. (Shorter distances generally
finished with a much smaller time variation)
> > MICHAEL "SUPERMAN" JOHNSON & GAIL DEVERS
> both had the highest M.P.H. of anyone in the 1996 OLYMPICS !!!
Wrong, Bailey had the highest MpH in the Olympics if you actually want to
take it there.
Point is it is a title that goes to the winner of the 100M as a matter of
tradition. Even if some yutz ran it in a time of 11 seconds due to a
strong head wind, he would be the world's fastest man (it is the title
that goes with that event)
Only reason there is even a resemblance of a debate is because USA needs
a Wheaties boy and he can't be Canadian so they have to claim Johnson as
the fastest and then qualify it by dredging up the first stat that works
> >This is a ridiculous statement....so if the record for the marathon stood
> >for 50 years and was then broken, would that make them the world's
> >fastest human?
> That would make it a tremendous record if it stood for 50 years !!!!
> The longer a record stands, the greater the record !!!!
> MICHAEL"SUPERMAN" JOHNSON 200 METER RECORD
> could last for 30 years !!!!!!!! bailey's record will probably be broken
> within a couple years !!!
That's all inconsequential, it doesn't make him the World's fastest man.
Powell broke the long jump record that had stood for nearly 30 years.
That is a long time. It doesn't make him the world's fastest human no
matter how long the record stood.
No one's saying Johnson's record is unimpressive, far from it, it was one
hell of a run. He just didn't win the event that grants the title
> >The 100 m record goes down more often because it is a more highly
> >profiled event and being this, there is more fame and money and
> >recognition here, and thus more people run the event and thus more people
> >attempt to break the record.
> Wrong !!! It's broken more often because it's broken by the slimmest of
> margins & no one has come along to smash the record down to say 9.66
> which would be exactly the same M.P.H. as a 19.32 in the 200 meter race !!
> While the women will take decades if EVER before the WORLD RECORD
> in the 200 meter race has a higher M.P.H. than the 100 meter; the OPPOSITE
> is true on the men's side !!!
I am not wrong. Look at any track meet in any stadium and watch. Which
event has the most competitors in it. I will bet you my last dollar right
now that it is the 100 M (As for the slimmest of margins....name me one
other person in the history of the world that has run the race (legally)
under 9.84 seconds?) The margin is so small because it is impossible to
improve it by much more than perfection
The MpH in the 200 is an average. The MpH in the 100 actually does get
higher. Just takes time to get there. Had Bailey run another 50 meters
for example, his average would have dropped even more significantly, you
obviously don't know what you are talking about.
> >Simple fact is, only 1 man has ever covered the distance in a faster
> >time, and he is technically the true world's fastest human, but he did so
> >under the influence of illegal substances.
> Wrong again !!!!!!! Even 9.79 has a slower M.P.H. than M.J'S 19.32 in the
> 200 but he's no longer a world class runner !! There is a big difference between
> a world record & the world's fastest man !!! M.J. could retire today & hold
> the 200 record for 30 years but he'd cease to be the world's fastest man !!!
> Just like FLO-JO is the fastest woman ever & may hold the M.P.H. record
> for 30 years but she is no longer THE WORLD'S FASTEST WOMAN !!!
Wrong huh? Ok name 2 men that have covered the distance faster schmuck
MJ is NOT the world's fastest human. The facts say so. If you chose to
say otherwise it is your option, I could choose to say that Michael
Jordan is the world's fastest human because he broke the long standing
record for most points in a season by a basketball player who returned to
the NBA after a year of playing pro baseball.
Doesn't mean that it is true
> >Or Johnson could try running the 100m but he wouldn't get to eat Bailey's
> >dust.....Bailey is too fast, and the dust would settle by the time
> >Johnson caught up to the field
> >Johnson cannot run the 100 m against Bailey
> >(btw at TOP speed, bailey is moving faster than Johnson...they have it in
> >the break down of the speed vs time and speed vs distance graphs, of the
> >I'll be the first to give credit where credit is due
> >DONOVAN BAILEY....WORLD'S FASTEST HUMAN
> >(like it or not, it is a hard and proven FACT)
I'm not ignorant in the world of track and field, I ran both events for
years (the 400 as well) and I am telling you point blank, the 100 m
generates a higher speed than the 200 even if the average time is slower
higher speed = faster
(which is faster a car that guns it like hell and stops after 40 meters
or a kid that manages to run at top speed to the starting line and beats
the car to 40 m because the car takes a second to accelerate?)