Wayde 9.94 +0.9 in Slovenia

[Davidokun]

Ceteris paribus, he still needs at least a 19.38 to reach the summit. Similarly, he needs at least a 19.70 to move up another notch.

[Per Andersen]

The great disappointment is that Bolt never bothered to really try and do an all out 400, circa 2009/2010. If he had gone all out back then, there would not be any argument about the 1-2-4 GOAT.

Nothing disappointing about Usain Bolt. He was just the greatest sprinter of all time. If you need a 1-2-4 guy there is always Herb McKenley. Neither Tommie Smith or Michael Johnson came close to medalling or setting WR in the 100, the prime distance in valuing sprinters. Were they ever even ranked in the top 10 in the 100?

[user4]

You're right.... if he had done it, the answer would still be Tommie Smith :-)

Hear hear, these 124 lists almost criminal in their bias against earlier generations. That Smith isnt on it is almost laughable.

[Davidokun]

For the record, "Jet Gear" is 31st:

3544 Tommie Smith 10.1 (1092) 19.83 (1247) 44.5 (1205)

Who knows how fast he could have run?

[Powell]

MJ didn't really run the 100m. Do you believe MJ was a 10.09 sprinter? In 1996, I think he was low 9.9x, possibly high 9.8x

And he wasn't really a 19.32 sprinter, either.

[LopenUupunut]

If I did my math correct a 19.60 and 9.84 gets him equal to Bolt, which is more realistic.

Just looking at the short view - this year - I think he's more likely to run 19.38 than 19.60 and 9.84. He's been very good at peaking for big meets so far, and the London track is fast, so the WCs will be an excellent opportunity for him to drop a super-fast 200 time.

[trackCanuck]

And he wasn't really a 19.32 sprinter, either.

Trying to picture Gwen Torrence's second best 200 being a 22.06. No. There's just a big gap between 19.32 and 19.66.

[user4]

For the record, "Jet Gear" is 31st:

3544 Tommie Smith 10.1 (1092) 19.83 (1247) 44.5 (1205)

Who knows how fast he could have run?

Yeah, the tracks have gotten so much faster and the training methods more advanced, put all 30 that are ahead of him and take them back to start in the mid 60s and theyd be behind number 31.

[expat]

Yeah, the tracks have gotten so much faster and the training methods more advanced, put all 30 that are ahead of him and take them back to start in the mid 60s and theyd be behind number 31.

Maybe — seriously — but one big thing both Smith and Bolt had was extreme competitiveness, not just in terms of who was on the track at the time; give me that time machine! But of course this is all historical fantasy that belongs in the other forum. Really, like any good 68-year-old, I'm looking to the future, and it's pretty clear who that is.

[NotDutra5]

you know somebody as reached the super-elite when he gets referred to by his first name (note that I say "he"; unfortunately too many people assign first-name status to those of the XX variety no matter what their age/fame).

oh, ok, rant off

Part of the reason I used his first name is the unusual spelling such that I don't think anyone would have any doubt who I was speaking of. The other is Wayde is a lot easier to type :-)

At the Brooks meet (or was it NBN or both)?, having the first names on the runners bibs I found completely useless for both genders.