Athletics Weekly

Wariner so hot he needs shades

News, reports and results from the UK and the rest of the world

Wariner so hot he needs shades

Postby Minerva » Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:57 pm

Jeremy Wariner opens up with 44.12!!! 8)

Scorching so early in the season - hopefully saving the sub 44's for Crystal Palace. Although I did enoy watching Benjamin beat him last year so on second thoughts I'd like a repeat of that - if they are both sub 44 even better :shock:

Wonder how low he can go this season - and is his agent worried about losing his record?
Minerva
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:05 pm
Location: London

Postby eldrick » Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:41 pm

benji's good, but not that good ! :wink:

anyhows, there is almost as much speculation on what jw can run for 200 this year, as he's come out & stated he wants to be a "doubla" in '08 :shock:
eldrick
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:12 pm
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby Minerva » Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:45 pm

eldrick wrote:benji's good, but not that good ! :wink:

anyhows, there is almost as much speculation on what jw can run for 200 this year, as he's come out & stated he wants to be a "doubla" in '08 :shock:


No surprise there looking at his agent/mentor/whatever

I guess then the speculation will be on 19:32?
Minerva
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:05 pm
Location: London

Postby eldrick » Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:48 pm

Minerva wrote:I guess then the speculation will be on 19:32?


uh uh !!!

i promise to buy 5 pints for any fan i meet if he ever cracks 19.90 ( legal wind/low-altitude ) in his career

he doesn't/never will have enough 100m speed to go significantly quicker than 20-flat
eldrick
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:12 pm
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby bekeselassie » Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:03 am

When I see that number - 19.32 - I just have to chime in.

Mark my words: NO ONE will run that for 30 more years, at least! I said that 10 years ago, and I'm still saying it (which means 10 years ago I should have said "40 years" :? ).

Of course, eldy will tell you no one will do it until they resurrect the Atlanta track. :roll: :P
bekeselassie
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: Atlanta

Postby daisy » Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:53 pm

bekeselassie wrote:Of course, eldy will tell you no one will do it until they resurrect the Atlanta track. :roll: :P

You mean we have to pry it back from the Braves?

I agree, i will be surprised if 19.32 is run again in my life time (30-40 year hopefully 8) ) . Fortunately, I saw that race in Atlanta! Of course, one can never say never.

I wonder if Wariner's goal is to peak earlier this year, especially given there are no championships for him this year? He may try and maintain a peak level for as long as possible rather than aiming for a maximal spike in Aug/Sept. Having said this low 44 for a season opener is just sick. Clyde Hart really needs a lot of praise for how he prepares his athletes. There are very few misteps from his athletes. I hope he is passing his knowledge on to other coaches.
daisy
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 4:44 am
Location: Wisconsin

Postby Smoke » Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:32 am

JW will never break 19.90??? LOL You will be buying a lot of pints, that is a foolish statement.
MJ was a 10.09 100 meter man. How about this, Spearmon's pr in the 100 is a blistering 10.37!!! You think Spearmon can run a faster 100 than JW?
What JW has is the speed endurance to run under 20 and that makes sub 19.90 very feasible in his career. I think you should reassess your statement...
Smoke
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:32 am

Postby eldrick » Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:06 am

Smoke wrote:JW will never break 19.90??? LOL You will be buying a lot of pints, that is a foolish statement.
MJ was a 10.09 100 meter man. How about this, Spearmon's pr in the 100 is a blistering 10.37!!! You think Spearmon can run a faster 100 than JW?
What JW has is the speed endurance to run under 20 and that makes sub 19.90 very feasible in his career. I think you should reassess your statement...


not particularly

everyone on t&f news was saying x-man shoud stick to the 200/400 double - i was the only one there saying that looking at his magnificent build & power he shoudn't give up on the 100 just yet & explore the 100 fully before he settles for the 400 ( before too much 400 endurance blunts his 100 speed )

so what does x-man do ?

first 100m in 2y & he blazes a wind-legal 10.12 !

according to reports, he chaged the last 40m reminscent of the King himself !!!

in addition, apparently, respected coaches watching were shaking their heads at what they considered the "worst technical 100m possible"

that boy has 10-flat ability

as for mj - he gave up 100 fairly early on in his career ( maybe injury or problems starting ) & that 10.09 doesn't anywhere reflect his true ability

he ran the split in his 19.32 in 10.12, which jrm ( man who developed wind-altitude calculator & a professor of physics ) estimated was worth ~ 9.94 for a 100m out of the blocks with a "normal start"

if he knew how to start, he was probably worth 4th in the atlanta 100, so 10.09 doesn't in any way represent his actual 100 ability

as for wally, smokes, you really must be puffing on the grand-pappy of bob marley's joint if you think 10.37 represents his likely current 100m ability ( same example as x-man & mj) !

watch his 200 races - his turnover is phenomenal !

he runs 19.8 off mostly that superb turnover & a good degree of 400 endurance & lets see how he compares with jw :

jw is currently in 44-flat form & about 3/52 ago ran 20.37pb - this is very recent & i assume he was in near 44-flat shape even then, so you can't go & immediately make huge claims he's already in <20 shape as that 20.37 was very recent - i'd say a sensible guess for his current 200 ability is 20.1 - 20.2

on top of that, as he is primarily a 400 runner, based on strength, i doubt his 100 is any great shakes - i'd guess his current best is maybe about 10.2

so we have jw currently as a

10.2 / 20.1 - 20.2 / 44.0 guy

now wally ?

he doesn't have jw's 400 endurance - i believe he's never cracked 45 ( although he's not trained 100% seriously for it, but he has done some training for it, as he used to run relay legs in ncaa for his college ), but give him the doubt & call him a 45-flat guy

as for 200, he's run 19.89 ( but i think he's worth close to 19.8-flat,as in that 19.89 he only really seemed to blast it in the last 50 or 60m & in ncaa's he ran a 19.91 into a wind - was 19.86 basic )

now, sprints boil down to a speed-endurance mix :

jw has 1s over wally at 400m, but is 0.3 - 0.4s slower than him over 200 ( !!! ) - how do we explain that ?

in order for wally to run so much faster over 200 than jw, with markedly inferior 400 endurance, implies wally must have significantly faster speed - i.e 100m ability

therefore, if we assume jw has 10.2 ability, a fired-up wally, with a good start, must be capable of

~ 10.0 - 10.1

i expect wally to run a wind-legal 10.0 - 10.1 this year if he knows how to start

as for jw, there is a limit to how much faster you can go with ever better 400 times

( sort of law of diminishing returns - this hypothetical scenario is something very important for you to know as a coach smoke :

for "developed" 100/200/400 guys, mathematical models tend to indicate, that if you have a fixed 100m speed, a 1s improvement in your 400m will only quicken your 200m by 0.25s

in jw's case if you assume he currently has 20.1 - 20.2 / 44-flat ability, if he keeps his 100 speed constant, but improves his 400m to 43-flat, this will only get his 200 time down to

~ 19.85 - 19.95

if he wants ~ 19.9 off just improved 400m endurance, it woud need a < 43.2 to do it )

- in the end, you need significant 100 speed as well & for me, jw doesn't have the turnover, or currently the strength to run any 10.0 - 10.1 times ( & i don't think he ever will )

i think, eventually, with mid-43 endurance & better strength, he may just dip under 20 in his career, but that's it

i stand by my promise - if he ever runs faser than 19.90 ( wind-legal/low altitude ) in his career, i'll bu any poster 5 pints !!!
eldrick
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:12 pm
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby bekeselassie » Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:33 am

How can it be foolish to say that a man who has broken 44 for the 400 can never run 19.90 for 200? THAT comment doesn't make sense to me. That's not to say he's a shoo-in to do it, and yes, there's a substantial difference between the 2 events.

But anyone who can run 43.93 over a lap and we expect to see go faster, I ain't (pardon the grammar) never gonna say what he can't run 200 in.

But he can't run 19.32. :wink:

Hey Smoke, I'm sure you make a lot of sense most of the time. I just don't agree witcha is all. :D

Sense people say sometimes of me that I make not. :roll:
bekeselassie
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: Atlanta

Postby bekeselassie » Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:37 am

This bekeselassie from the US of A is a complete and utter moron!!

After my last post I realized that Smoke isn't the one with whom I disagree. Sorry! :oops: I somehow got it all messed up in my brain. I know you're shocked. :(

Eldrick, you are wrong! And that's why I've banned you from our borders! :x
bekeselassie
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: Atlanta

Postby eldrick » Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:05 am

if you want a quick rundown of what i'd estimate he needs to run fast 200s :

1s off 400m is worth ~ 0.25 off 200 & 0.1s off 100 is worth 0.2s off 200m ( that last one is also common sense as well as mathematical )

so if he is currently maybe 10.2 / 20.1 - 20.2 /44.0, then keeping 100 fixed, improving his 400 :

43.75 -> ~ 20.04 - 20.14
43.50 -> ~ 19.98 - 20.08
43.25 -> ~ 19.92 - 20.02
43.00 -> ~ 19.85 - 19.95

for a fixed 400, improvement in 100 times :

10.15 -> ~ 20.00 - 20.10
10.10 -> ~ 19.90 - 20.00
10.05 -> ~ 19.80 - 19.90
10.00 -> ~ 19.70 - 19.80

he's not obviously going to run 10.00 in his career ( i've never heard of a career 400 guy dropping down to 100 & running 10.00 ( remember mj was a career 200 guy who just happened to have enough endurance to dominate the 400 ) ), so he needs a combo of better 400/100 to run fast 200's

43.75 / 10.15 -> ~ 19.94 - 20.04
43.50 / 10.10 -> ~ 19.78 - 19.88
43.25 / 10.05 -> ~ 19.62 - 19.72
43.00 / 10.00 -> ~ 19.45 - 19.55
42.75 / 9.95 -> ~ 19.29 - 19.39

( last one coming towards mj level in atlanta, but he had a dodgy track to help him :P )

you pick what level you think for jw
eldrick
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:12 pm
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby eldrick » Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:07 am

bekeselassie wrote:This bekeselassie from the US of A is a complete and utter moron!!

After my last post I realized that Smoke isn't the one with whom I disagree. Sorry! :oops: I somehow got it all messed up in my brain. I know you're shocked. :(

Eldrick, you are wrong! And that's why I've banned you from our borders! :x


it's ok bex, i just want to finish up on this last topic here before going on a sabbatical ( hopefully finished by day end )
eldrick
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:12 pm
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby The Blue Aardvark » Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:46 pm

What an amusing read the comments by the poster called Eldrick. One wonders whether even he himself can parse his own opinions for internal cogency.

I believe I can summarize succinctly what his words say when he is not baffling us with numbers.

He believes he can take the personal records of Wallace Spearmon (19.89 and 10.37 run THREE DAYS APART) and use them to predict a 100m time of 10.0 seconds.

However, he derisively rejects the notion anyone should take the personal records of Jeremy Wariner (43.93 age 21 and 20.41 age 18 ) and use them to predict a 200m time of 19.9 seconds.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

I know I shouldn't stick my nose in, but who knew such high comedy was to be found lurking on a track and field discussion board!!!
The Blue Aardvark
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:28 pm

Postby eldrick » Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:57 pm

errr...

have you ever seen wally run apart from the wc ?

can you describe his style to us ?

now can you parse for us the 100m pbs of every guy who has run a legit 19.89 for us ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:12 pm
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby The Blue Aardvark » Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:13 pm

THREE DAYS APART!!!


ETA

DaSilva 10.12
DaGreene 9.79
DaJohnson 10.09
DaSpearMon, 10.37
The Blue Aardvark
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:28 pm

Postby eldrick » Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:27 pm

& darest ?

excluding wally, list the 100's of all the guyz who ran <19.90 at low-altitude/legal wind

then give us there mean

then what do you generally infer that the ballpark 100pb for a < 19.90 guy shoud be ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:12 pm
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby The Blue Aardvark » Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:32 pm

eldrick wrote:& the rest ?


Only four 19.89's there are.

BUT DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

You are not weasiling out of this oh no.

Re-read your posts. Honestly, I'm not kidding you, your reasoning is gibberish. Pay attention to what you wrote instead of attempting to win the argument. Your numbers are fraud.
The Blue Aardvark
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:28 pm

Postby eldrick » Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:54 pm

& while your at it boy,


look up the 200 pbs of every guy who has run <44 at low altitude ( apart from jw ) & then give us there mean
eldrick
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:12 pm
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby The Blue Aardvark » Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:17 pm

eldrick wrote:& while your at it boy,


look up the 200 pbs of every guy who has run <44 at low altitude ( apart from jw ) & then give us there mean



Better than that little girl, why don't you look up the junior times of everyone who has run 19 seconds, then, for homework, try to find out how many were faster 200m runners than Jeremy Wariner at age 18, and how many of them subsequently went on to add 43.93 speed endurance. After you're done, you can go and play with your numbers in the sand pit.

You see! Me be patronising too! Must be me winning! Me be big debate champion, tee-hee! Squeee!


Now. You've not yet explained the horrible contradictions of logic in your earlier posts. In fact you haven't even tried to. I wonder why.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
The Blue Aardvark
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:28 pm

Postby eldrick » Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:33 pm

listen now carefully twonk :

jw is a grown man & i compare the times of grown men with the times of other grown men not boyz

now, stupid, go look up the 100 pbs of all <19.90 guyz ( apart from wally ) & give us there mean

then, like i said, look up the 200 pbs of all the < 44 guyz ( apart from jw )

& contradictions in logic ?

well, i said, that wally is/was likely a 10.0 - 10.1 / 19.8 / 45.0 guy currently &
jw is currently a likely 10.2 / 20.1 - 20.2 / 44.0 guy

who around here has argued with that ?

i then said, for jw to improve his 200 time he needs to improve his 100 &/or 400 times

who's argued with that ?

i then said a 0.1s decrease in 100 times ( fixed 400 time ) produces a likely 0.2s reduction in 200 times

who's argued with that ?

i then said a 1s decrease in 400 times ( fixed 100 time ) produces a likely 0.25s reduction in 200 times ( this does require mathematical models & i'm not going to explain it to a dimwit )

can you tell me what you expect a 1s reduction in 400 times ( fixed 100 time) to result in likely reduction of 200 times ???

with those assumptions, i followed the next logical step & extrapolated what various improvements in 100 & 400 times will result in for his possible 200 time

what is the flaw ?

"educate" me boy
eldrick
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:12 pm
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby bekeselassie » Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:04 am

Man! It's not just you guys, I know.

But why does the tone always feel so negative on these boards? I know I'm new here and don't want to come in acting like I can run the place, but come on everybody! It's track & field. Let's have fun, and let's disagree respectfully.

Why so much condescension? Personal shots? :(

FYI, this game isn't entirely new to me - I've been a poster on another T&F forum for the last six months. Over there people get into it for sure. But it feels pretty lousy over here I gotta admit. Let's talk some track! :D
bekeselassie
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: Atlanta

Postby The Blue Aardvark » Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:47 am

eldrick wrote:
"educate" me boy


I'll presume you're familar with the following, sweetcheeks.


The Bible
Plato, The Republic
Herodotus
Thucydides
Aristotle, Politics
Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics
Augustine, City of God
The Koran
Aquinas, Summa Theologica
Machiavelli, The Prince / Discourses
Descartes, Discourse / Meditations
Hobbes, Leviathon
Montaigne, Essays
Bacon, New Organon
Spinoza, Ethics
Locke, Two Treatises of Government / An Essay on Human Understanding
Berkeley, Principles of Human Knowledge
Rousseau, The Social Contract / The Discourses
Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population
Smith, The Wealth of Nations / The Theory of Moral Sentiments
Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics
Hume, Human Understanding / Human Nature
Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman
Paine, The Rights of Man
Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals / Critique of Pure Reason
Hegel, Philosophy of Right / Phenomenology of Spirit / Philosophy of World History
Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation
Kierkegaard, Either/Or
Mill, On Liberty / The Spirit of the Age / The Subjection of Women / Utilitarianism
Frege, Foundations of Arithmetic
Moore, Principia Ethica
Russell, Basic Writings
Husserl, The Essential Husserl
Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus / Philosophical Investigations
Woolf, A Room of One's Own
Heidegger, Being and Time
Ayer, Language Truth and Logic
Satre, Being and Nothingness
DeBeauvoir, Second Sex
Arendt, Past & Future / Human Condition / Eichmann / Origins Totalitarianism
Strauss, What is Political Philosophy?
Rawls, A Theory of Justice
Popper, Open Society and its Enemies
Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia
Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature
Hart, The Concept of Law
Raz, The Morality of Freedom / The Authority of Law
Berlin, Four Essays on Liberty
Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously / Law’s Empire
Williams, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy
Nussbaum, Upheavals of Thought / Frontiers of Justice
Sen, Development as Freedom / Rationality and Freedom

Lenin, Essential Works
Keynes, General Theory of Employment
Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy
Hayek, The Road to Serfdom
Galbraith, The Affluent Society
Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom
Jameson, Archaeologies of the Future / A Singular Modernity / Postmodernism
White, Metahistory / The Content of the Form

Marx, Communist Manifesto / Capital
Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil / On the Genealogy of Morality
Freud, Basic Writings
Jung, The Portable Jung
Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism / Essays on Sociobiology
Durkheim, Division Labour/Professional Ethics/Sociological Method/Religious Life
Levi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology/Tristes Tropiques/The Savage Mind
Geertz, Interpretations of Cultures/Local Knowledge/Available Light
Said, Orientalism

Benjamin, Illuminations/Reflections/ The Paris Arcades
Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment/ The Eclipse of Reason/ Critical Theory
Adorno, Minima Moralia/Auth. Personality/Aesthetic Theory/Negative Dialects
Marcuse, One Dimensional Man / Reason and Revolution / Eros and Civilization
Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interests/ Structural Transformations Public Sphere
Merleau-Pointy, Phenomenology of Perception
Levinas, Totality and Infinity / Otherwise than Being
Foucault, Discipline & Punishment - Power/Knowledge
Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition
Barthes, S/Z
Gadamer, Truth and Method
Quine, Word and Object / Quintessence / The Pursuit of Truth
Derrida, Writing and Difference
Lacan, Ecrits
The Blue Aardvark
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:28 pm

Postby daisy » Fri Apr 28, 2006 6:10 am

The Blue Aardvark wrote:
eldrick wrote:
"educate" me boy


I'll presume you're familar with the following, sweetcheeks.
delete long list

You forgot,

Milne, Winnie the Pooh,
Seuss, The Cat in the Hat,
etc.

But serious readers would go no further than here
daisy
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 4:44 am
Location: Wisconsin

Postby slowcoach » Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:58 am

He said educate:

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn The Gulag Archipelago
Antony Beevor Stalingrad
Eric Schlosser Fast Food Nation
Michael Moore Stupid White Men
Keith Basso Wisdom sits in Places
Tom Holland Rubicon
Paul Tomassi Logic
John Rice Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis
slowcoach
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 1:01 pm
Location: Dooblah

Postby eldrick » Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:02 am

The Blue Aardvark wrote:
eldrick wrote:
"educate" me boy


I'll presume you're familar with the following, sweetcheeks


what for ?

none of those books has any maths which is going to help me derive what a better 400 time is going to imply for 200 with a fixed 100m & none of those books lists standard deviations calculators or t-tables which is going to help me decide what is the statistical likely range of 200 pbs of < 44 guyz within 95% confidence limits ( so we can lessen the significance of the "outlier" 19.32 ) nor the statistical likely 100 pbs of < 19.90 guyz within 95% confidence limits ( again lessening impact of outliers )
eldrick
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:12 pm
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby bekeselassie » Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:06 am

Just like the people at my church. Ignore me. :(


:wink: :D
bekeselassie
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: Atlanta

Postby slowcoach » Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:11 am

eldrick wrote:
...standard deviations calculators or t-tables...


Tables of statistical distributions apply to random variables.

Athletic performances are not random.
slowcoach
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 1:01 pm
Location: Dooblah

Postby eldrick » Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:30 am

slowcoach wrote:
eldrick wrote:
...standard deviations calculators or t-tables...


Tables of statistical distributions apply to random variables.

Athletic performances are not random.


coachy,

i'm 95% confident that we shoud get a fairly narrow, expected range for the 100 pbs ( +/- 1.95996 sds) for the < 19.90 guyz ( expand the criteria later to do the same for all < 20.00 guz for a comparison ) :P

it's uselfulness for a guy like wally may be :

"you've run 19.89, your expected 100 time shoud between this range ...

- we are 95% confident you shoud be able to do this
"
eldrick
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:12 pm
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby bekeselassie » Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:45 am

How's that sabbatical coming, eldy? :roll:

:P
bekeselassie
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: Atlanta


Return to Current events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: iain, larkim, MSN NewsBlogs, Yahoo [Bot] and 10 guests

 

Athletics Weekly Limited © 2010. Terms of use

Design by The Church of London