posted Jan 14, 2009

bolts achievment was greater because he destroyed the world record and probably will do again soon but after that there isnt going to be many that could challenge him as it is the more traditional sport that has been going on for a lot longer



I'm not so sure history will support the theory you put forward Terry.

The 100M world record, in fact every athletics world record, has been continually reduced over the years,

Bolt took 0.05 seconds off the old record, a feat equalled by Maurice Greene in 1996 when he took Donovan Bailey's record of 3 years standing. This new record lasted 2 days shy of 6 years.

Similary, Carl Lewis took 0.04 seconds off Leroy Burrell's record in 1998 and this new record lasted only 3 years.

History has shown us that large margins have been taken off the record before, and yet someone else has always come along and broken it again.

Bolt's record breaking run in the 100M was extroadinary, and by slowing down we are unsure as to how fast he could have run (several different times have been proposed by high profile reports, and they vary quite significantly), however, unless we are saying that man has reached his evolutionary peak, in this discipline, in the form of Usain Bolt, then whatever time he goes on to achieve will be broken and will be done so in years not decades.

It was often said in the past that man could not break the 10 second barrier for the 100M, and yet Jim Hines managed this with electronic timing (albeit at altitude) in 1968, so any talk that Bolt's record will last for a significant time is very premature. To further say that athletics is a more 'traditional' sport (whatever that means ???) to promote it's records as more meaningful and superior, is a bit daft TBH and sounds like a spur of the moment, ill conceived, concept.

Terry, your posts are being picked apart by a number of people, perhaps it's time to go back to the football (or wrestling lol) forum,

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 20, 2009

While both were grea, BOLT is without a doubt the best Olympian. Not everybody can swim, but 99% of the world can run

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 20, 2009

Perfectly good choice....but your reasoning is very simplistic, did you have any other criteria for picking bolt?

I have a feeling it's a good thing the choice didn't include Robert Korzeniowski as well as Phelps and Bolt.

Korzeniowski won the 50Km walk in 3 sucessive olympics 1996, 2000 and 2004 as well as the 20km walk in 2000 making a very impressive double that year.

If 99% of the world can run (not sure that's accurate, but never mind), then surely 99.5% of the world can WALK (made the 99.5 up, but you get the point)....which would make Korzeniowski the better olympian.

Maybe after all that, he is....but surely there's another thread for that

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 21, 2009

Now that I think about it, what about Buvisar Saitiev? He won his 3rd gold in 74kg wrestling. He was amazingly good

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 28, 2009

needle - what point are you trying to make...
seriously your comment (although is almost on subject) has nothing to do with what iv said and you have just copied every1 else.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 29, 2009

AmazingTerry,

What an amazing post, inane, illogical and absurd.

If my post was 'almost on subject', what does that make your 'Good looking women', 'Pamela Anderson' & 'Specsavers posts' of a few weeks back? Were they 'on subject'? Come on...surely you can do better than that...then again you're proving that you can't.

I have copied everyone else have I? Perhaps you could point me to the post(s) where previous 100M records/times etc has been discussed. Of course you can't, so what exactly have I copied?

So my point has nothing to do with what you said....according to you that is. You say Phelps records will be gone in a couple of years, and I have posted why the same will be true of Bolt. Can you see the relevance?

The point I am making is that all of your wild speculations are unfounded, devoid of factual reasoning and slightly immature. To make my point I have drawn on historical fact, Darwin's theory of evolution and basic common sense.

Terry, it's time to buck up your knowledge, improve your debating skills and post something intelligent for change. Until then your comments will continue to be treated with the disdain they deserve and rightly derided.

Is that explanation clear enough for you, or do I need to make it more basic than that?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 30, 2009

ok then ill conceed that i dont no much about the olympics, if you can admit to a mid life crisis.

i had a spare 2 mins and went through the thread and noticed a pattern occuring which was, no matter what people had to say they were wrong in your eyes.

i could put right now that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen and you would disagree.

but congratulations on winning a meaningless arguement.

if you put that much time in to somthing that had meaning you might win a nobel prize.....

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 30, 2009

It wasn't a meaningless argument, you simply asked a question and I supplied an answer. If you didn't want that outcome why make the post? Do you believe this to be an argument? If so, don't tyou think you should supply something of substance. If you want a discussion on you inability to post well thought out and reasoned comments, then I will oblige.

I also had a spare 2 minutes hence my full explanation, although for you to see a pattern in that time is very impressive lol, congratulations





2 hydrogen molecules and one oxygen.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 30, 2009

Fair enough i was in the wrong thread,which i no nothing about, i just added a opinion.

add comment | complain about this comment