Bolt vs Farah

[muppet]

400m?

Lads, do your homework: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieFBraqfbBk.

Farah my arse, Bolt might lead after 250, Rudisha might make it interesting nearing the line but 400 - 600m James is the man.

I called James' win in 2011 (the only thing I called): http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=20082.0

But of course I didn't back him.

You're calling the reigning world and Olympic 400m champion to win a race at 400m or maybe a bit more against three other athletes who have another specialist distance?! Talk about sticking your neck out.

I wasn't the one suggesting a race over 400m. I was just pointing out that putting Bolt, Rudisha & Farah at that distance is pointless as there is a man who would wipe the floor with them.

Because that's his specialist distance, seriously.

Of course.

What is the point of running a race over a distance? Surely it is to see who is the fastest. I am arguing that James would win at 400 - 600m against anyone. Otherwise why not have Bolt v Farah at any random event, e.g. jousting? Or the football transfer market?

Nonsense. They are all runners - the point is to run at a distance that isn't their specialist one to introduce an element of uncertainty and competition. Of course James would beat any of them over 400m.

It's the exact same principle as when Michael Johnson "raced" Bailey over 150.

No it isn't.

Bailey was 100m champ and Johnson 200m champ. Hence a race over 150m. This would produce arguably the words fastest 150m runner.

If Bolt (200m) ran the 300m against Kirani then you would have a good argument as to who was the fastest on earth over the intermediate distance.

Running Bolt v Farah is idiotic before you decide what distance to run it, as no matter what the distance anyone can argue that there are faster men at that distance, so what is the point?

Bailey and Johnson were both sprinters, Bolt and Farah are physically completely different due to completely different disciplines.

[gallsman]

400m?

Lads, do your homework: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieFBraqfbBk.

Farah my arse, Bolt might lead after 250, Rudisha might make it interesting nearing the line but 400 - 600m James is the man.

I called James' win in 2011 (the only thing I called): http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=20082.0

But of course I didn't back him.

You're calling the reigning world and Olympic 400m champion to win a race at 400m or maybe a bit more against three other athletes who have another specialist distance?! Talk about sticking your neck out.

I wasn't the one suggesting a race over 400m. I was just pointing out that putting Bolt, Rudisha & Farah at that distance is pointless as there is a man who would wipe the floor with them.

Because that's his specialist distance, seriously.

Of course.

What is the point of running a race over a distance? Surely it is to see who is the fastest. I am arguing that James would win at 400 - 600m against anyone. Otherwise why not have Bolt v Farah at any random event, e.g. jousting? Or the football transfer market?

Nonsense. They are all runners - the point is to run at a distance that isn't their specialist one to introduce an element of uncertainty and competition. Of course James would beat any of them over 400m.

It's the exact same principle as when Michael Johnson "raced" Bailey over 150.

No it isn't.

Bailey was 100m champ and Johnson 200m champ. Hence a race over 150m. This would produce arguably the words fastest 150m runner.

If Bolt (200m) ran the 300m against Kirani then you would have a good argument as to who was the fastest on earth over the intermediate distance.

Running Bolt v Farah is idiotic before you decide what distance to run it, as no matter what the distance anyone can argue that there are faster men at that distance, so what is the point?

Bailey and Johnson were both sprinters, Bolt and Farah are physically completely different due to completely different disciplines.

You're considering it in the context of a competition to see who's fastest. That not what's being proposed. What's being suggested is an entertaining spectacle that could be used to raise money for charity.

The Bailey-Johnson race was about money, nothing else. They sold it on the basis that Nike were advertising Johnson as the fastest man in the world after his 19.32 when Bailey was the 100m record holder, on whom that particular title was generally bestowed. In addition to that, it was just as much of compromise - Bailey hardly ever ran the 200 (20.42 PB) and Johnson almost never ran the 100. This is just taking the compromise to the extreme.

As mentioned previously, Bolt vs Rudisha at 400 would be the most interesting of the lot.

[muppet]

400m?

Lads, do your homework: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieFBraqfbBk.

Farah my arse, Bolt might lead after 250, Rudisha might make it interesting nearing the line but 400 - 600m James is the man.

I called James' win in 2011 (the only thing I called): http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=20082.0

But of course I didn't back him.

You're calling the reigning world and Olympic 400m champion to win a race at 400m or maybe a bit more against three other athletes who have another specialist distance?! Talk about sticking your neck out.

I wasn't the one suggesting a race over 400m. I was just pointing out that putting Bolt, Rudisha & Farah at that distance is pointless as there is a man who would wipe the floor with them.

Because that's his specialist distance, seriously.

Of course.

What is the point of running a race over a distance? Surely it is to see who is the fastest. I am arguing that James would win at 400 - 600m against anyone. Otherwise why not have Bolt v Farah at any random event, e.g. jousting? Or the football transfer market?

Nonsense. They are all runners - the point is to run at a distance that isn't their specialist one to introduce an element of uncertainty and competition. Of course James would beat any of them over 400m.

It's the exact same principle as when Michael Johnson "raced" Bailey over 150.

No it isn't.

Bailey was 100m champ and Johnson 200m champ. Hence a race over 150m. This would produce arguably the words fastest 150m runner.

If Bolt (200m) ran the 300m against Kirani then you would have a good argument as to who was the fastest on earth over the intermediate distance.

Running Bolt v Farah is idiotic before you decide what distance to run it, as no matter what the distance anyone can argue that there are faster men at that distance, so what is the point?

Bailey and Johnson were both sprinters, Bolt and Farah are physically completely different due to completely different disciplines.

You're considering it in the context of a competition to see who's fastest. That not what's being proposed. What's being suggested is an entertaining spectacle that could be used to raise money for charity.

The Bailey-Johnson race was about money, nothing else. They sold it on the basis that Nike were advertising Johnson as the fastest man in the world after his 19.32 when Bailey was the 100m record holder, on whom that particular title was generally bestowed. In addition to that, it was just as much of compromise - Bailey hardly ever ran the 200 (20.42 PB) and Johnson almost never ran the 100. This is just taking the compromise to the extreme.

As mentioned previously, Bolt vs Rudisha at 400 would be the most interesting of the lot.

That is fine, but it might as well be Bolt V Farah in chess or bungee dumping then.

[theskull1]

That is fine, but it might as well be Bolt V Farah in chess or bungee dumping then.

Could get very messy

[muppet]

That is fine, but it might as well be Bolt V Farah in chess or bungee dumping then.

Could get very messy