London 2012 Megathread [Part 1]

titan18

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't get the whole buzz about the 100Ms tbh. Why is it the biggest and most prestigious gold medal in the Olympics? It's not even overly exciting in my opinion. In the real world, if you ever needed to run 100M very quickly it wouldn't really matter if you were 2/100s of a second later in doing it. The 10,000M should be the more prestigious race, again just imo.

Imo, the best are the mid distances races. The 800,1500 and 3000m steeplechase are great to watch. Prefer the 800 atm as Rudisha is incredible. People rave about the likes of Bolt and Blake but Rudisha is the best athlete in the world imo

mike65

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

Yeah but in the 10,000M you don't see 4/5 fellas cross the line within half a second of each other!

They can be surprisingly tight at the end.

phasers wrote: »

I must admit that is part of the reason I love the 100m

Watch the last 10 seconds of the 10,000 and you're okay!

robinph wrote: »

But most people can't be bothered to wait 30 minutes for a result.

17 million in the UK alone watched Mo Farah cross the line last night.

fionnsda

the groutch wrote: »

love Colin Jackson's going mad versus Johnson's zero reaction during the race

They know full well the camera is on them , Jackson playing up to it!

leahyl

robinph wrote: »

leahyl wrote: »

I reckon the main reason is Bolt tbh - before he came along I would have thought the 10,000m was the more prestigious race as well. It's just Bolt generates such publicity so therefore the race is more popular perhaps?

Nope, always been the 100m.

Is that gospel? It is actually the most prestigious athletic event? I would have thought it's a matter of personal opinion?

Jimoslimos

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't get the whole buzz about the 100Ms tbh. Why is it the biggest and most prestigious gold medal in the Olympics? It's not even overly exciting in my opinion. In the real world, if you ever needed to run 100M very quickly it wouldn't really matter if you were 2/100s of a second later in doing it. The 10,000M should be the more prestigious race, again just imo.

Huh? No way 25+ mins of lap after lap before anything remotely interesting happens. In the real world if you needed to run 10000m quickly you'd drive or get a bus instead.

You could however make an argument for the 400m, 1 complete lap as the showpiece event.

Anyone

100m is all about the speed, whoever wins it is that fastest person in the world.

Personally I have always enjoyed the 1500m, the tactics that you can get in that race is brilliant.

take everything

Anyone wrote: »

He ran under 12 seconds, so no, you wouldnt

That was hyperbole.

ascanbe

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't get the whole buzz about the 100Ms tbh. Why is it the biggest and most prestigious gold medal in the Olympics? It's not even overly exciting in my opinion. In the real world, if you ever needed to run 100M very quickly it wouldn't really matter if you were 2/100s of a second later in doing it. The 10,000M should be the more prestigious race, again just imo.

100m is the most prestigious because it's the most elemental of all races. It answers, plain and simple, the question of who is the fastest athlete.

youreadthis

leahyl wrote: »

Is that gospel? It is actually the most prestigious athletic event? I would have thought it's a matter of personal opinion?

Well it is opinion, but it is widely regarded as the most prestigious athletic event.

tayto lover

leahyl wrote: »

Is that gospel? It is actually the most prestigious athletic event? I would have thought it's a matter of personal opinion?

It decides who's the fastest man in the world.

Guy:Incognito

Deleted User wrote: »

You can't make a mistake in the 100m whereas you could in the 10000m and still win it!

Yeah, no way you can make a poor ish start then come through to win in a new OR time.

robinph

leahyl wrote: »

Is that gospel? It is actually the most prestigious athletic event? I would have thought it's a matter of personal opinion?

Without wikipeda how many previous 10km winners can you name?

What about 100m?

Unless you are a running geek you'll not have heard of most of the distance runners, the 100m Olympic champions are instant household names every time.

Brain Stroking

take everything wrote: »

That was hyperbole.

You call a man on hyperbole whilst believing you could have beaten Asafa Powell tonight. Nice

Guy:Incognito

ascanbe wrote: »

100m is the most prestigious because it's the most elemental of all races. It answers, plain and simple, the question of who is the fastest athlete.

In the same way as saying Lionel Messi is the best footballer in the world maybe. But not in reality. Hes the best in his position, not much cop as a goalkeeper compared to Buffon though.

take everything

Brain Stroking wrote: »

You call a man on hyperbole whilst believing you could have beaten Asafa Powell tonight. Nice

What?
Hyperbole.
It's exaggeration for a rhetorical purpose.
So no, i don't believe i could ever beat Powell.

Dafuq?

mrsbyrne

The 1500 M is the blue riband event of the olympics. The whole track and field event builds up to it. Thats why despite the fact that Coe only has two gold medals (only!), he is held up by some as an icon because he won consecutive 1500m finals. (80/84)

tayto lover

That was a nice interview with JJ Nevin. He comes across as a very shrewd young man with a good head on him. He said he had even more to give. He could go all the way.

Nal

I wish all the girls got this excited about me finishing in less than 10 seconds.

leahyl

robinph wrote: »

leahyl wrote: »

Is that gospel? It is actually the most prestigious athletic event? I would have thought it's a matter of personal opinion?

Without wikipeda how many previous 10km winners can you name?

What about 100m?

Unless you are a running geek you'll not have heard of most of the distance runners, the 100m Olympic champions are instant household names every time.

Alright relax, I'm not claiming to be an athletics expert, I'm most certainly not but at the end of the day I suppose an Olympic Gold medal is an Olympic gold medal - are you a better athlete if you get it in the 100m rather than the 10000m - I mean they are completely different style races. I don't know, I don't think you can compare.

Anyway that's just my opinion. I'm not Looking for an argument :-)

Pdoghue

Yeah, but around the late 70s and early 80s, the rivalry with Ovett first and then Cram was big news. They were breaking world records all the time - this was at a time when athletics was glamorous and pre-drugs..

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Yeah, no way you can make a poor ish start then come through to win in a new OR time.

Starts were never Bolt's strong point. Rarely doe he have the best start in a race.

titan18

robinph wrote: »

Without wikipeda how many previous 10km winners can you name?

What about 100m?

Unless you are a running geek you'll not have heard of most of the distance runners, the 100m Olympic champions are instant household names every time.

Tbf, some of those 100m champions are known for more worse reasons than their sprinting. Also, I wouldn't really consider the likes of Donovan Bailey or Maurice Greene from recent times, or most before Carl Lewis as household names. I'd probably only consider Owens,Hayes and Hines pre Lewis as househould names.

Pdoghue

I'd say Borzoz in 72 was fairly well known at the time - won the 100-200 double I think.

BetterCallSaul

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

In the same way as saying Lionel Messi is the best footballer in the world maybe. But not in reality. Hes the best in his position, not much cop as a goalkeeper compared to Buffon though.

You sure? :cool:

http://www.soccershouts.com/forum/uploads/gallery/album_4/gallery_91_4_23444.jpg

ascanbe

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

In the same way as saying Lionel Messi is the best footballer in the world maybe. But not in reality. Hes the best in his position, not much cop as a goalkeeper compared to Buffon though.

But athletics is different.
No matter what distance the race is, the purpose is to cover that distance in as fast a time as possible.
So it's all about covering a distance at the greatest speed possible.
What sets the 100m apart is that the winner is, without question, running much faster their top speed than any other athlete is.
So it's the most elemental and clear; who is the fastest runner on earth?
I can understand why people may find other races more fascinating, but there's a reason the 100m is the most prestigious.

Guy:Incognito

BetterCallSaul wrote: »

You sure? :cool:

http://www.soccershouts.com/forum/uploads/gallery/album_4/gallery_91_4_23444.jpg

Knew that picture would be posted, but yes.

titan18

Pdoghue wrote: »

I'd say Borzoz in 72 was fairly well known at the time - won the 100-200 double I think.

I could be wrong, but I'd be pretty surprised if a lot of people knew who he is.


Off athletics, another huge robbery in the boxing with an Azeri getting through

Guy:Incognito

ascanbe wrote: »

But athletics is different.
No matter what distance the race is, the purpose is to cover that distance in as fast a time as possible.
So it's all about covering a distance at the greatest speed possible.
What sets the 100m apart is that the winner is, without question, running much faster their top speed than any other athlete is.
So it's the most elemental and clear; who is the fastest runner on earth?
I can understand why people may find other races more fascinating, but there's a reason the 100m is the most prestigious.

Why not the indoor 50 or 60m so?

pandaboy

Usain Bolt Pic

Totally don't know how to upload images but this pretty much suffices Bolt's success tonight.

Jimoslimos

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why not the indoor 50 or 60m so?

Decimal counting system,

100m < 10secs has a nice ring to it