Mens 100m Predictions

1st Semi: Blake and Dix.

The 2nd semi final looks like a tough race - it will be quick. 2 fastest plus 2 fastest losers... I think the 2 fastest losers will come out of this race.

Bolt/Frater/Lemaitre/Thompson

3rd Semi: Carter/Gatlin


For the final:

Usain Bolt to win in 9.65s, follwed by Yohan Blake in 9.75s, followed by yikes... its a tough call for 3rd place - i'll go with Gatlin in 9.82s.

You've given me a useful starting point Ryan with your prediction...

Bolt looks like he's got it together when it matters...Blake looking very good for the breakthrough he's been promising ( would've been interesting to see how would'be fared against Powell had Powell been on the start line - feel like Blake's been narrowing the gap, and that he has more hunger and grit about him )...

3rd a toss up between Gatlin and Lemaitre...Lemaitre may well take the European record if the conditions permit...not sure if Gatlin is in the condition required to pull out 3rd. Going to go with Bolt (9.62); Blake (9.79); Lemaitre (9.83)

Regarding Chambers, he needs a good start in his semi to give himself a shot at the final. He has a sub 10 performance in him, and if he makes the final, and gets a good start, with the right conditions, could go low 9.9s even. May be his last chance at a global. Would be great to see HAA make a breakthrough as well - would serve to raise the game, in my view, of young British sprinters...

Looking forward a great deal

Bolt looked the most impressive so far, no doubt about it, and with his main rivals (most of them anyway) not even competing for various reasons I just can't see anyone beating him. Second and third places are very much open I'd say. Lemaitre looked very good in his heat, as did Blake, so I'd probably be tipping them for silver and bronze. No idea about the times but with the right wind believe Bolt will go fast though no world record (9.6s)

Bolt/Carter/Blake. Just to get the World talking!

Lemaitre and Gatlin follow.

Chambers DQ!

Chambers...what a shame!!!

unlucky chambers, didn't think he rose early, but there's a definite twitch there when you see the replays. Impressive from Blake!

impressive from Collins. Decent run from HAA but not enough to make the final. Gatlin is out, I'm happy about that...

Still gutted about Dwain...had he not false started, believe he could've made the final...

We got a job trying to get our sprinters to reach next level - the world's moved on it seems, leaving British sprinters behind...

teassoc wrote:

Chambers DQ!

Sorry guys - didn't mean to put a curse on him.

Bolt - Blake - Lemaitre - Dix - Carter - Collins - Bailey - Vicaut

For those opposed to the 'one-start and you're out rule', like me, what just happened with Bolt will force a revision of that rule...simple!!!

Well done Blake!!!

And well done Collins too!

Izzymiyagh1 wrote:For those opposed to the 'one-start and you're out rule', like me, what just happened with Bolt will force a revision of that rule...simple!!!

Agreed. It's finally bitten them in the face. Well done to Blake.

The rule is fine.

Dissappointed to see chambers dq, looking at the times in the final he was well capable of winning a medal! Congratialations to blake though, done well beating dix lemaitre and the rest.

I've always said it, the rule is rbbish. Bring back the two false starts individually and then you are out. That was by far the best performances and tension building we ever saw. IT made the 100m race last longer, but as a fan it was fantastic to watch. It was better than the 1 false start and then everyone is cautioned - as that was unfair.

Two false starts each was the best, but obnly due to tv coverage they had to change it, as it could take too long for the viewers on tv. Now that is a shame.

Bit of a disappointing 100m final really. Built up over the last 12 months to this???? zzzzzz.... Dissappointing year really.

Perhaps someone should explain the *starters* rules to

Usain again



Once yes , Twice Yes. THIRD TIME ?????????

ryanbailey wrote:I've always said it, the rule is rbbish. Bring back the two false starts individually and then you are out. That was by far the best performances and tension building we ever saw. IT made the 100m race last longer, but as a fan it was fantastic to watch. It was better than the 1 false start and then everyone is cautioned - as that was unfair.

How was that fantastic to watch? It was so dull watching them take about 5 minutes to limp back to their marks every time one of them false started. It eventually made watching sprints quite excrutiating.

It also played havoc with scheduling when one 100m race was taking about 20 minutes to complete. That's the main reason why they won't go back to that rule.

I find one false start and you're out quite straightforward. You wait for the gun, like you're actually meant to do.

One-false start, and then it goes against the whole field is the best solution in my view ( though it has its own drawbacks and isn't perfect by any means ).

Much prefer this to the others. Current rule will actually come to affect likelihood of super fast times / world records, as the possibility of DQ's sinks in, particularly so after Bolt's false start today...the previous 'two false-starts per athlete for disqualification' was too onerous and potentially time consuming...

The global events are the most likely occasions where we might see really fast times over the 100m. Given the race is so short, getting a good start matters. Naturally, the most important thing is the competition between athletes for placings, however, from a spectator point of view, and certainly, from the perspective of my own personal appetite for excitement, good times are an essential part of process and part of the drama...

Just my view of course

Th one false start rule robs the viewers of a real race.

The guy that won will be remembered for the fact that Bolt was disqualified, and thats not fair. False starts add something to the race it shows the pressure these guys are under.

the rule is pathetic

One false start and the whole field is under caution was the worst rule ever.

It's basically saying that you might as well try to anticipate the gun because you don't get any penalty even if you go early. People were false starting on purpose in order to put the field under pressure. It really didn't work.

I agree entirely with Steve Cram's comments on this situation:

"There's nothing wrong with the false-start rule, people have got used to it and accept it and actually it's there to help people like him. Having this rule of no twitching, one and you're out, stops people messing around"

djlovesyou wrote:One false start and the whole field is under caution was the worst rule ever.

It's basically saying that you might as well try to anticipate the gun because you don't get any penalty even if you go early. People were false starting on purpose in order to put the field under pressure. It really didn't work.

I agree entirely with Steve Cram's comments on this situation:

"There's nothing wrong with the false-start rule, people have got used to it and accept it and actually it's there to help people like him. Having this rule of no twitching, one and you're out, stops people messing around"

Sure there are advantages but what about the disadvantages. I'm pretty sure they will be changing the rule. The commercial interests will dictate it. The whole World was watching Bolt and the championships will have been hugely devalued through his DQ.

The whole world still was watching Bolt. They watched him get disqualified.

The DQ didn't affect the commercial value of the race at all. It perhaps made it even more of a talking point.

I can't see what they can change it to. One and you're out is light years ahead of any of the other options.

If you start changing rules because the outcome that 'the people' wanted didn't occur then the sport of athletics moves toward no longer being a sport and just some scripted entertainment program.

You are probably right djlove. I was just stating that i enjoyed the 2 strikes each. I couldn't care less about the tv coverage, they can wait. I always enjoyed the tension building, and found it more fair to the competitors.

But in todays society, nobody has any time or patience. Or manners... lol... but that is hopefully another story.

djlovesyou wrote:The whole world still was watching Bolt. They watched him get disqualified.

The DQ didn't affect the commercial value of the race at all. It perhaps made it even more of a talking point.

Talking point for the wrong reason. This is not the result those with commercial interest wanted. The winner won't have anything like the respect he should have had. The result is seriously devalued. I don't understand how you can say otherwise.

The DQ did affect the commercial value of the race. Not possible to come to any other the conclusion in my view. We, from here, may not be able to determine exact numbers and various other specifics of this assertion, but nevertheless, I believe strongly that this the case. And given the men's 100m is the effectively focal point - the most highly watched event of any global athletics championship - I would say that the DQ also had an impact on the commercial value of the World Athletics championships too. The DQ will force a re-evaluation. Whether or not that leads to a change in the rules, remains to be seen.

The false start option I prefer is not perfect and is definitely open to abuse. Athletes can try their luck with it knowing that if they false start, it counts against everyone on the start line, thereby penalising everyone - but much prefer this to 'one false start and out' rule...

This 100m final will be remembered for the fact that - Bolt/Gay/Powell were not in it. It was in won 9.92s which by todays standards is a 2nd or 3rd place time.

2nd place was Dix in 10.08s, which is an almost unheard of time for 2nd place in a 100m final. Aside from Blake, everyone under performed and they know they did.

It is the most dissappointing and must be one of the slowest 100mwc final races overall in a very very long time.

Regarding the time, we have to acknowledge it was run into headwind...favourable conditions could have seen Blake go low 9.8s. Blake is a great talent and will soon enough be knocking out more times in the 9.8 range...I rate him in competitive terms higher than your Frater's, Carter's, Martina's. Effectively, the fourth best after Bolt, Gay, and Powell...

What does it matter how fast or slow the race is?
Surely the race itself is the exciting thing? Did you enjoy the fast times of Gatlin and Montgomery when they crushed the opposition? Or like me were you just annoyed by their obvious cheating?

If there was no clock on the screen you wouldn't know how fast they were going. But a good, close race is always exciting

Yeah, I agree.

Watching a race won in 9.7 or 10.2 looks exactly the same.

no, its completely different. the 10.2 race is much too slow to be entertaining.

But you're completely missing the point.

If there wasn't a clock on the screen, you wouldn't know whether you were watching a 9.7 race or a 10.2 race.

Are you suggesting that it's the numbers that appear on the screen that entertain you in this sport?

yes its completely different. well done. if you can't run sub 10 its not exciting. Can you not tell the difference between a 9.7 runner and 10.2 runner without a clock????

Times matter...

Bolt is a super star not simply because he can beat everyone around him, but because he has taken the event to new heights. Winning the Olympic or World titles are the most important things in an athletics career...but Maurice Greene has beaten everyone around him and won all the great titles - but how come we no longer talk about him?!

It's not enough to beat everyone - you lay down marks...hence why Michael Johnson will go down in legend...his 200m time was awesome, leaving many to think it would be possibly many decades before it got beaten; his 400m time remains unbeaten, and may remain so for another few years...this is what gives Johnson his legendary status; his efforts raised the bar, and allowed us to think the unimaginable was possible...

If Bolt had won his world title in 10.2 seconds, and not 9.58secs, he would not be a super star - indeed, we would talking about why the event lacked strength in depth and quality ( watching Bolt dipping to beat Pickering over the line doesn't appeal - this is what we would see in a 10.2 second race ), and we would be looking back to the years of Maurice Greene. As it is, Bolt has raised the bar - beating other super fast athletes by some distance. He commands awe and brings a very powerful, and wide, interest to athletics...he makes us believe that unimaginable is possible...and we can only feel this if Bolt continues to run super fast times...

Times are inherent part of the interest and excitement...may be not for some, but for the many others...

I don't know if your willfully misunderstanding this or not?
When the actual race is being run we, the spectators do not know how fast the athletes are running. Therefore we can't say UNTIL THE RACE IS FINISHED how fast they have run.
So do you sit unmoved during the race, no matter how close it is but then leap to your feet in excitement when a fast time comes up on the screen?
Would a 8 man blanket finish into a 5m per sec head wind in an olympic final be dull because it was relatively slow?


Here's some 'super stars' for you izzy who have 'taken the event to new heights'

Florence Griffith Joyner 100m WR
Florence Griffith Joyner 200m WR
Marita Koch 400m WR
Jarmilla Kratochvilova 800m WR
Ben Johnson 100m WR
Tim Montgomery 100m WR

Spot the connection?

What are you going to do when Bolt retires? Give up watching athletics?

Firstly, I do not follow athletics because of Bolt. I am and have always been an avid athletics fan ( from the age of 7 )...

Secondly, I appreciated the point your making here, whcih is that we do not know the time untilt he race if finished; but that's just the point - at the point, at the finish, we are then in a position judge for ourselves, as to the quality fo the race. Naturally, a closely contested race is a competitive one...and offers a great deal in terms of excitement - but how judge how the event was is not simply determined by this necessarily, at least not be me, and I'm sure this is the case for many others; I also look at the time. Based upon the competitive nature of the race, and the time, I will then assess whether I thought it was a great event / set of performances or not.

The Berlin final wasn't actually a competitive race - but it is remembered and will go down in history; why?! Because Bolt obliterated the field, ending in a time 9.58...and this is what people wanted to see...what Bolt was capable of. Many wanetd to see Bolt leave everyone behind...and run a full race, through to the line. Remembering that in Beijing, Bolt ran 9.69, have started celebrating a good 15 - 20m before the finish...ever since that moment, there's been a heightened interest in discussing the limits of human capabilities, and if what might be able to see what the possibilities are as a result of Usain Bolt. In short, prior to the Berlin 100m final, everyone was actually talking about what times he woudl be able to run if he were to push himself all the way. And amazingly, he astounded us - and he did so because he ran 9.58. If it had been a blanket finish, into 5m per sec headwind, we woudln;t be talking abut in the same way; if Bolt hadn't run the Beijing race the way had, celebrating, we woudln't have been looking forward to Berlin they many had...

Yes - we can have a good race...but if we didn't have times, then for me a great deal of appeal would be lost; these events aren't simply about the race on the day, and who wins or how athletes place [ particularly with regards to global events ], they are also a way of measuring the present with the past in terms of human athletic progresison - and this is done through times...

It matters to me an event is run in a good time - whether a sprint or a long distance event. I have this interst at the beginning of an event, during the event, and at the end. 100m men's final won in 10.2 wouldn't cut it for me.

I think it's a case of choosing to ignore the point here.

9.7 and 10.2 look exactly the same to the naked eye.

Are you saying that the actual race (that's the bit between the start and the finish) has you completely unmoved and only after they've crossed the line and it passes your threshold for what is a respectable time can you possibly get excited about it?

I appreciate what you're saying about times being important, but the point that you and Ryan seem to be saying is that there is no possible way that a race that finishes outside a certain (arbitrary) time can be exciting. This is absolute nonsense.

I've been excited many a time by even such 'laughable' (to people like you it seems) events as a Northern League or something. That's the beauty of the sport to me.

I think a lot of people get lose it this statistical analysis of races and predicting a whole load of what-ifs and it's this stuff that they find important about the sport. The actual act of racing is secondary to the breakdown of a load of numbers that appear on a screen. You'll find this is very common amongst a number of hardcore athletics watchers (I hesitate to say fans.)

i'm motionless in anticipation of the time they run.

Are you joking???? lol... because i am.

But back to a serious note??? Can you seriously not tell the difference between a 10.2s runner and a 9.7s runner? Have you never been on the side of the track when a 10.2 runner runs past and when a 9.7 runner runs past? They more impressive one is about 5 meters in front at the end of 100m, easy to spot.

Ps. Ben Johnson is my idol, i love the Canadians through and through.

This discussion is circular as it all hinges upon personal preferences and opinions, even down to what should be the specific point at issue...and for that reason, the discussion is unresolvable...

I by my own nature have always been interested in the stats and the numbers...hence, such an interest in the times. Doesn't mean that I am not interested in the races and events themselves...goes without saying that I am; and it matters to me more that British athletes do well. Would prefer a gold medal for Ennis and a crap tally, ahead of silver, and the second highest tally ever ( for example ). But the stats are an important feature of athletics...but the degree to which one wants to engage with them is all down to personal preference...

As they say, best left as an 'agree to disagree'