jason gardener 60m WR

[speed-101]

jason gardener says he will break the 60m WR held by maurice greene on saturday but personally i think if anybody will break it it will be mo greene. no offense to jason but i just dont think he has what it takes to run under 6.39 he looked flat out when he run 6.46 mo on the other hand has something to prove this year.

[slowcoach]

That's unlike Jason. He usually let's his legs do the talking. I can't see anyone running faster than 6.45 in their first race.

Should be interesting, though.

And live coverage on BBC (Thank God for the Brits!). And the wife has gone away for the W/E!!

[marknhj]

I wish my fellow countrymen sprinters would keep their mouths shut until they actually achieved something (Athens 4x100 doesn't count, we didn't win, the US lost)

[eldrick]

that is the funniest joke i've heard in years !

please, is it april the 1st already ?

[Jon]

He doesn't say he WILL break it. He just says that now, seeing as he's done everything there is to be done indoors except break the WR, breaking the WR will be his AIM.

Considering he twice ran 6.49 with a hernia, I think he could improve upon his 6.46. Not sure about the WR, but he looks set for a good indoor season nonetheless.

[Jon]

>That's unlike Jason
>I wish my fellow countrymen sprinters would keep their mouths shut
>that is the funniest joke i've heard in years




Again, he DOESN'T say that he WILL break the WR. It is just an AIM of his, seeing as he has been WICh, twice EICh, and European Record holder. What else, apart from the WR, could possibly motivate him for his indoor seasons??

Read the article yourself:

http://sport.scotsman.com/athletics.cfm?id=102852005

And you'll see he says that it's no more than "just a comment off-the-cuff."

[gh]

If he's going to break it, I suggest he start looking for non-sea-level sites. History's two 6.39s came in Madrid (640m) and Atlanta (302m). The only 6.40 was also Atlanta, ane one of the two 6.41s was in Madrid. It's not a coincidence.

[marknhj]

Jon, let me guess, you did his website?!

[Jon]

>I suggest he start looking for non-sea-level sites.



Luckily the 'searching' has been done for him. The EIChs this year are, of course, in Madrid!

[The King]

>If he's going to break it, I suggest he start looking for non-sea-level sites.
>History's two 6.39s came in Madrid (640m) and Atlanta (302m). The only 6.40 was
>also Atlanta, ane one of the two 6.41s was in Madrid.

Mo's 6.41 was at 250m within Stuttgart

[Jon]

>Jon, let me guess, you did his website?!



Lol, no. But to satiate your need to see my latest athletics work, then here's one for you:

http://www.nadinefaustin.com

[eldrick]

>Considering he twice ran 6.49 with a hernia, I think he
>could improve upon his 6.46. Not sure about the WR, but he looks set for a good
>indoor season nonetheless<

depends upon when he got his hernia

did he have it when he ran 6.46 ?

[Jon]

>did he have it when he ran 6.46 ?



Not sure if he had it then, but he definitely had it when he ran those two 6.49's in Budapest. His 6.46 was just three weeks before Budapest.

[gh]

<<Mo's 6.41 was at 250m within Stuttgart>>

And Gardener could be there this weekend, but is instead at 55m in Glasgow.

[Jon]

><<Mo's 6.41 was at 250m within Stuttgart>>

And Gardener could be there this
>weekend, but is instead at 55m in Glasgow.



...where he'll be appearing as an OG Gold medallist in front of a home crowd.

I wonder why he cho$e Gla$gow....

[mal]

>I wish my fellow countrymen sprinters would keep their mouths shut until they
>actually achieved something (Athens 4x100 doesn't count, we didn't win, the US
>lost)

Sounds like a pseudo pom. All relays have people winning and people losing. The GBR team won that race. The US team didn't run fast enough. If all was "right" in la la land and the team with the fastest runners won, then the US would have won. It doesn't work that way and never has. Never will. The US didn't run fast enough to make up their usual weakness in hand overs.

[Jon]

>>I wish my fellow countrymen sprinters would keep their mouths shut until
>they
>actually achieved something (Athens 4x100 doesn't count, we didn't win,
>the US
>lost)

Sounds like a pseudo pom. All relays have people winning and
>people losing. The GBR team won that race. The US team didn't run fast enough.
>If all was "right" in la la land and the team with the fastest runners won,
>then the US would have won. It doesn't work that way and never has. Never will.
>The US didn't run fast enough to make up their usual weakness in hand overs.




I can see it from both viewpoints - the US were such big favourites, it "was theirs to lose" and we know they were all capable of winning.. IF they got the changeovers right. But, as mal said, it's not just who has the fastest team. Changeovers are just as much a part of relays as the team's collective speed. The UK won, end of.

It also annoys me when people say (in all seriousness!) "Oh, if the race was 2m longer, USA would have won"... right....... and if it was 150m shorter, they would have been 3rd or 4th!!! It's a friggin 4x100m relay - FIXED size!

[dr ngo]

... and if my Aunt Jessie had balls, she'd have been my Uncle Jake ...

[EPelle]

Jake the Snake?

[eldrick]

the US did lose it & they had a reason

john capel was supposed to be in that squad, but the management couldn't risk running him as he'd been found guilty of cannabis doping & they were concerned that regardless of the US running, they may have been DQ'ed after for including a doped runner

so capel was dropped & coby miller was included pretty late on - i doubt miller had had as much practice with the team & was probably an inferior athlete to capel anyway

all in all the US couldn't put out their full "A" squad - this obviously turned out to be crucial

[OKOWO]

>the US did lose it & they had a reason

john capel was supposed to be in that
>squad, but the management couldn't risk running him as he'd been found guilty
>of cannabis doping & they were concerned that regardless of the US running,
>they may have been DQ'ed after for including a doped runner

so capel was
>dropped & coby miller was included pretty late on - i doubt miller had had as
>much practice with the team & was probably an inferior athlete to capel
>anyway

all in all the US couldn't put out their full "A" squad - this
>obviously turned out to be crucial

I agree with you that the late inclusion of Miller and subsequent lack of cohesion cost the US the gold but having said that the Brits did everything they could've done to win under the circumstances and deserve due credit.On the Gardener 60M WR attempt,I think it was more of a passing statement rather than a target.He believes he has a good chance but if it doesn't happen he won't be kicking himself over it.Personally,I think 6.39 will take some beating and I wouldn't be surprised if Mo himself gets to it first.He's an awesome 60M sprinter when in top form.

[marknhj]

Sounds like a pseudo pom. All relays have people winning and
>people losing. The GBR team won that race. The US team didn't run fast enough.
>If all was "right" in la la land and the team with the fastest runners won,
>then the US would have won. It doesn't work that way and never has. Never will.
>The US didn't run fast enough to make up their usual weakness in hand overs.

>>>

Hey pal, oh excuse me, mal...pseudo pom? I love you cliche boys. Yep, baton changing skills are of paramount importance to relays. However, in my non-pseudo Brit heart I know we were extremely fortunate that the US made a complete balls-up of the second change-over. I love the victory but accept that it's a little tainted.

[EPelle]

Would it have been better for the Brits if the Americans just dropped the baton like the women? Would the victory feel more "real"? With a dropped baton, would it have been more acceptable, insofar as USA has had some previous gaffes with baton exchanges?

I see it as simple as this: the first to the finish line was declared the winner, and the runner-up was the first loser. I don:t think Fermin Cacho (Morceli), Noureddine Morceli (El G) nor Noah Ngeny (El G) felt their OG victories were tainted when someone else "should" have won, but wasn:t on his A-game the day of the final.

[Track fan]

My favourite line about the US in the relays was Dennis Mitchells" We didn't lose, we just came second"???? Same idea as the Americans are better but the Brits won.......

[eldrick]

on paper, you would expect a decent,well drilled US team ( OG one ) to run mid-high 37's ( with 3 guyz of 9.8 calibre, you expect no less )

if they don't run such a time, you know they have failed

i don't remember the winning time in OG, but an indisputable brit victory ( i.e. no bleating about the US couda/wouda/etc. ) would have needed a hig-37 at the minimum

what did they run ?

[steve]

I wonder if Gardener would be better off in the 100m outdoors if he ran 200m indoors as opposed to the 60. The rationale being that he's a great indoor short sprinter with a great start, but only a good, not great, 100m sprinter. Would running the 200m indoors help condition him to maintain his speed past 60m? Any thoughts?

[Track fan]

Eldrick the winning time was a low 38 which was similar to the time that the Soviets used to run with similar quality sprinters. The US should have smoked the Brits, but they didn't.........

[Jon]

Plus several times throughout the season, the US fielded pretty strong relay teams at various meets but they only once broke 38s and even then they only just dipped inside it. If they wanted to ensure they were unbeatable in the relay, they should have worked MUCH harder on changeovers.

After the relay semis, Britain worked solidly on their changeovers, leaving no stone unturned before the 4x1 final. The US obviously didn't put in as much changeover work before the final and they paid the price.

[Track fan]

That has always been the US achilles. They lost more Olympic finals or didn't even make the finals because of this problem. The only "legit" Olympic loss was 96' when Dennis Mitchell came up with his famous quote......

[OKOWO]

The winning time of 38.08 was just .01 ahead of the USA but .07 slower than the USA SF time.Even with their weak link,this US quartet had the potential to obliterate the WR.

[eldrick]

>The winning time of 38.08 was just .01 ahead of the USA but .07 slower than the
>USA SF time.Even with their weak link,this US quartet had the potential to
>obliterate the WR<

historically, check US times in OG relay finals - at least since '84, if they've got the baton round, they have always gone sub-38 ( they ran 38.03 in '77 World Cup ! & i've expected a top US team to run sub-38 since that day )

this must ? 4 occasions at least - check the record books

thus, a sub-38 was expected at the very least

forget winning or losing, on paper beforehand a sub-38 was fully expected & any time outside would be considered a gross disappointment ( regardless of winning or not )

[Powell]

>historically, check US times in OG relay finals - at
>least since '84, if they've got the baton round, they have always gone sub-38 (
>they ran 38.03 in '77 World Cup ! & i've expected a top US team to run sub-38
>since that day )

They ran 38.05 in '96. Also, they only ran 38.06 in winning the 2003 WCh.

[eldrick]

>>They ran 38.05 in '96. Also, they only ran 38.06 in winning the 2003 WCh<

i only meant OG, not WC

i also meant a top-outfit, which normally means an individual medallist/"legend" ( King,Mo or leroy) on anchor & probably another guy at least in the final: the '96 quartet of marsh,mitchell,harden & drummond are probably the weakest combo the US has fielded in 20y of OG - they wouldn't frighten anyone - i expected very little of them - a team with mitchell as an anchor is p!ss weak - no one expected him to hold onto bailey if bailey was within a coupla meters of him at the last change

[Track fan]

The Canadian team had two monster runners in Bailey and Surin. But they also had two weak runners in Gilbert and "Blast off" who couldn't make the US relay pool on their best days. That's why I have always found their win amazing......