imagine Bolt Vs Gay Vs Dix Vs Blake 200m

I think This race would get someone below 20s

im just glad to be witnessing these fast men!!!!

I imagine they may get below 20s too. But it'd be a real push on all their talent.

sorry i meant below 19 seconds

dammage7 wrote:sorry i meant below 19 seconds

I made that mistake yesterday

Shows how quick things have transformed - we're now talking of sub19 as opposed to sub 20.

And to think, we brits have no athletes anywhere near the 20 sec mark presently. Seasons bests for our top athletes of 20.4 and 20.5 just don't cut the mustard...

Lisen to yourselves boys. Below 19? And you still don't question it?
Really, what is it going to take for you to open your eyes?

Do you even have a time in your head that might, just might appear suspicious if it were run?
Reading the above I honestly don't think that you do.

english_osprey wrote:Lisen to yourselves boys. Below 19? And you still don't question it?
Really, what is it going to take for you to open your eyes?

Do you even have a time in your head that might, just might appear suspicious if it were run?
Reading the above I honestly don't think that you do.

English... please just stop it... it is always the same drivel. Accusations and suspicions. Can't you just wait for the failed result? Do you always have to have such a negative outlook on the sport we love (which you obviously don't) ? Why are you on this board?

I love the sport and I have done for 40 years. Drug taking and drug cheats are ruining the sport and will, if nothing is done, ultimately destroy it. But as you see and understand nothing apart fom fast times don't let it bother you. Just bury your head in he sand and pretend everything is ok. That will surely work. Won't it?

Accusations and suspicions? Are you as stupid as you sound? Before the World Champs the third and fourth ranked 100m sprinters tested positive for peds that enabled them to,
a)claim the glory and medals that were due other athletes and
b)enable them to steal competition money from other athletes and
c)pressue once clean athletes into also taking peds just to keep up with them.


The good news is that the top ranked guy was 'injured' as well but thankfully recovered in time to compete in the the next diamond league meeting.

There is a philosophy in this country that is Inncoent until proven guilty. Maybe you are just too old now english? You seem to be stuck in the days of capital punishment, and maybe you are thinking that the times people run should be too.

There is a thing called progression, and it seems here in the UK (if your opinion is anything to go by) we do not believe progression happens. I guess that is why we are no longer good at as much as we were. We used to be world beaters at a lot of sports, but because of attitudes like yours we are now very far behind in most things.

I do not believe a word you say, because you always spout the same negative rubbish that clogs up these boards, with drugs, pessimism and damn hatred of anyone suggesting that we should be doing better.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE!!!!

STOP LABELLING TOP PERFORMANCES BY NON UK ATHLETES AS DRUG CHEATS!!!

PS> WHY RESORT TO PERSONAL INSULTS??? YOU CALL ME CHILDISH, IMMATURE AND STUPID? All i did was comment on your negative attitude and outlook. I didn't resort to childish remarks or name calling (until this post). It seems the pot is calling the kettle black...

english I've just re-read your post and something that really occurs to me is that it is people like you that will eventually destroy this sport. You believe any performance that stands out to the rest of the world is because of drugs - not because of talent and hard work - I've said this in my previous post that you are forgetting about progression.

But it seems that you jump up and down every time something like this happens, shouting 'Look he's on drugs!''. Quite frankly it is very ugly/prejudice/negative (your opinion is what is wrong with this world) and that is what is going to cause people to stop taking an interest. There will always be druggies in every walk of life, in every sport, looking for the bigger hit, the better performance. But we really can't label everyone who is better than we expect as a drug cheat.

A better response from you would have been, 'Oh that was a good performance'.

Then you can leave the drug testers to prove your suspicions right or wrong.

But it really is very very bad to just start jumping up and down shouting drug cheat every time this happens. It makes you look.... well i won't say it because everyone else reading this knows what i mean already. I won't resort to your level of petty posts.

All I know is I've got a ticket to next years 200 final, could be the race of the century!

I would still fancy Bolt to take it, would certainly push him to his fastest.

english_osprey wrote:Lisen to yourselves boys. Below 19? And you still don't question it?
Really, what is it going to take for you to open your eyes?

Do you even have a time in your head that might, just might appear suspicious if it were run?
Reading the above I honestly don't think that you do.

This is such an idiotic way of looking at sport. Decide in advance what time / distance you consider to be achievable and damn everyone who exceeds the figure you plucked out of the air.

I am sure that there were probably people like you calling Roger Bannister a doper for breaking the "impossible" four minute mile. I mean he must have been a doper right? All these years of trying and no one can run under four minutes and this chancer comes along and breaks the record.

And look at his progression:

1952 4 mins 10
1953 4 mins 3
1954 3 mins 58

I mean no one improves by 12 seconds in two years unless they are a doper right?

And he retired immediately afterwards and was a neurologist. Very suspicious. I am sure he had access to all sorts. Must have been a doper right?

Or maybe he was just a determined hard working young man who progressed naturally over time.

For me, and most decent people, definitely the latter until / unless there is concrete proof otherwise.

The mind is the most important limiter of performance for well trained athletes. Usain Bolt has changed everyone's perception of what is possible and it shouldn't be any surprise that his most talented competition are also improving dramatically as what they believe is possible has now changed.

Huge strides ( no pun intended ) have been made in the sprints in terms of technique, the science, the mechanics, the processes etc. These will naturally have had an impact on the sport. This is what we are now noticing now.

Previously, it was a case of just running as fast as you can - now, there is a focus on the different phases. There is the issue of technique etc. You need only to look at Bolt, as he explains in that recent interview in Brussels, and his advice to Blake, that he shouldn't be trying to run so hard on his 200m bend, and see how then Blake has capitalised, having clearly more left in the tank towards the end of the race, then rewarded with that time. Big strides being as a result of a more refined approach to the sport i.e. not enough just to run as hard as you can...there's way more to it than that. And at that level, it makes a big difference

It's a travesty that our British sprinters don't often enough break 10.2. A crime even

Super post Icecold...

Sadly EO is completely right here. Sorry if that's offensive.

Sunshine and yams.

"technique, the science, the mechanics, the processes"

This is complete ballacks. You get in the blocks and you run fast, it isn't pole vault as much as people want you to believe it is. You get in the blocks and run fast with sunshine and yams, you run faster. It's very simple.

Yes - its that simple...that's why we've got a whole raft of sprinters in the UK running sub 10...

It's those final considerations and refinements that make all the difference. HAA, MLF, Pickering etc, could do with some if this expert knowledge and orientation, including around conditioning...it don't need to be rocket science, but to get the best out of an athlete takes careful consideration and focus. The 'science' enables that. Though not the sprints, take a look at the work and the science put into Mo Farah's development, and consider how he has progressed, or is that down to yams too?!

Mo Farah is still half a lap off the WR in the 10000 though.

The 'science' is a very good excuse for why this generation are now smashing the times of a clearly doped generation.

Advances in performance can come about as a result of a range of reasons. Yes, PEDs may have enabled some to progress in the way they have - but in others, there was, and in the sport generally, there was room for improvement. We have a step change. One that requires a cultural adjustment. For some this is easy...others, not so...

Regarding Mo, he may be half a lap off the WR, but he has developed into a world class athlete, and will run faster than he has so far - all because no stone is left unturned i.e. the 'science'. Just because a performance isn't a WR doesn't mean that it doesn't stand up in terms of it being a demonstration of the value of working in a focused, refined way. Including going somewhere like the US, to access the right facilities and even emerse himself within the right environment in terms of ideas, attitudes etc.

dj i didn't realise you were one of those lot...

Dear of dear... Please take off your blinkers.

It's interesting that you would be telling me to take off my blinkers.

It's you who chooses to ignore the obvious.

Before this era, there hasn't been a clean 9.8 runner. (perhaps Fredericks?) How come all these clean guys are doing it now? The science?

djlovesyou wrote:Before this era, there hasn't been a clean 9.8 runner. (perhaps Fredericks?) How come all these clean guys are doing it now? The science?

Yup. You would definitely have been a Bannister & co basher back in the late 50s shouting PEDS at the scores of athletes who achieved sub 4 minute times when no athlete clean or not had managed to do the same before '54.

"How come all these clean guys are doing it now? The science?"

Foolish!

I don't see what's so foolish about it.

The best guys in the world, all super doped, could barely break 9.8, and now running these times is routine for these new generation of clean athletes.

Given the history of the sport, it's not exactly shocking that some people are not totally convinced.

Pietro Mennea who held the 200 m world record from 1979 to 1996 at 19.72 s admitted to using human growth hormone throughout his career. At the time however it wasn't banned by the IAAF although I am sure it wasn't "condoned" - i.e. athletes didn't go around saying I take HGH.

Against this of course one needs to recognise the bone fide changes in the sport - training methods, oxygen tanks, scientific analysis of the various phases in a sprint, diet, acceptable nutrients, greater access to the worlds gene pool, springier tracks, springier shorts, tight socks etc.

Nore Staat - well put...what I've effectively been trying to say, except put better by you

izzy

what are you talking about?
'technique, the science, the mechanics, the processes' are just words don't you see that? Do you seriously think that only Jamaica and USA sprinters are privy to these skills?
'Oh no their techniques, mechanics etc are so superior to ours we can never hope to learn them and thus compete.'

'It's a travesty that our British sprinters don't often enough break 10.2. A crime even'
Do you think that this might be due to the fact that the UK (and most of Europe) have credible drug testing schemes, maybe? And that other countries (that's you jamaca) don't?
Part of the problem with ped users is that they skew results so that the credulous who know nothing about athletics or its history (guess who boys?) will compare ped performance with non-ped performance and then scratch their asses and wonder why.

I see a lot of your posts bang on about the uselessness of uk sprinting which is both disrespectful and ignorant. I am sure our athletes give everything they have only to see all their hard work regularly negated by cheats.
Ask Darren Campbell for example if he thinks Kenteris was the better man in Sydney?


'but in others, there was, and in the sport generally, there was room for improvement. We have a step change. One that requires a cultural adjustment'
This is quite laughable. No concrete reasons for improvement just vacuous waffle. In what sense would any adjustment be cultural?

nore

good point

However Mennea' 19.72 was both HGH and altitude assisted but it's far inferior to todays clean sea-level performances

and

there most definately has been advances in training methods but
a) are they really enough to provide todays times? and
b) why are apparently only the USA and Jamaica are using them?

I mean cultural as in you - and other sceptics - have to get used to the improvements we're observing...that is what I mean by cultural. In other words, you haven't got used to it yet...but I can understand that - you need time

are we different cultures then?

or have you unearthed a new definition of the term?

also, it goes without saying that you haven't mentioned any of my points. Of course you are entitled to an opinion, however erroneous, it's just that to have a valid opinion its normal to back it up with some supporting facts or ideas

EO - my posts regarding UK sprinters aren't meant to demean their efforts, and certainly, some of our sprinters have raised their game at the rigth time. Darren Campbell is one such example. And going up against athletes that have used PEDs is beyond unreasonable. However, British sprinting is not in a good state - that is what I'm drawing attention to. We still have the likes of Chambers and Devonish, and even Malcolm, representing - all at the latter end of their careers...

The lack of any British sprinters in any of the finalsat Daegu, was a poor show - particularly as no one was anywhere near to even a seasons best, let alone a PB, which may have at least seen one or two of them have a shout at getting into the final. Malcolm, by his own admission had underperformed; Devonish wasn't at all happy either...

Been following athletics for over 30 years. Fully understand what its about. The individual efforts and sacrifices many make are immense. However, that should not take away from the fact we epxect to see some quality performances, given that we seem to be pouring so much money in to the sport, and have the likes of CVC to try to bring about improvements in performances...otherwise, what is the purpsoe of CVC?! Why we paying him good money to work with our athletes?!

The terms 'culture' and 'cultural' clearly in your books have a very narrow definition...I've used the term perfectly correctly

Regarding facts, our best 200m time for the year is 20.46 - by HAA - however, no one in Daegu came close to it. The time is hardly that remarkable to begin with. Its not necessarily a case of being beaten or beating others; one measure of progress and success is to how our athletes fair in relation to their own standards...and they didn't fair well by these either - sadly...and I do not takle joy in any of that...I am a huge supporter of British athletics. But when its not good, its not good...it has to be called. I have brought it up a few times recently for this reason. It has been a poor show - a dissapointment, unfortunately

I think this is a case where we should agree to disagree...

Hi to everyone. I am new here, and i am an athlete.
You all are right. Ofcourse scince is going forward, but people stay the same.
The biggest progress is in men's 100m and 200m. So the question is - why not 400m? No doubt Bolt is nature's gift, and if he fails drug-test, athletics will be in knockout for a long term.
What has happenned in Carribean from 2007-2008? Such a huge boost in sprint exactly from that years, especially 2008 Olympics.
Most UK and US sprinters are Jamaican origin, but they don't perform even close to what show those guys. Yes, 9.8 now is rutine. 10.10 is total Poopie.

how jamaica for example, without a male 100m olympic medal for 30 years now has 4 of the worlds fastest 6 of all time. And 5 Jamaican men got into all-time top 10 at 100m from 2008 to 2011 ? (Powell from 2005). 9 ran sub-10sec, 6 sub-9.90 (2008-2011). The best jamaican sprinter before that was Raymond Stewart with his 9.96 in 1991. and Percival Spencer with 9.98 in 1997.


Over decades of sprinting, there has always been one or two sprinters that stand out at any one time, carl lewis from calvin smith (us) linford christie (uk) maurice greene (Us), donovan bailey (canada) gatlin (us) powell, bolt (jamaica). for them to run 9.9 was running great sprinting. suddenly over 3 years, jamaica has mullings 9.8 beinning of season, nesta carter – who! running 9.79, blake 19.26, bolt 9.58, powell 9.7 without trying, let alone all the other sub 10’s. its just odd that suddenly 9.8 is seemingly easy and the 5 best running it are all jamaican, surely there would be someone else in the mix. Dix of late, yes, but no-one else.
Also, if Blake (who I genuinely do like)was beaten to bronze from gold by UK’s Harry Aitkens Areeytey in the world juniors, then surely harry AA would be up there with the worlds best now and not running 10.1 – 10.3 over and over. If Harry suddenly ran 9.8 I would be sceptical.
One more point, there is a considerable element of speed endurance to the 200. The greatest MJ took 10 years to drop from 21.5 to his 19.32, 10 years of hard, hard work. Blake, who is faster over 100m has seemingly run past MJ’s 19.32 without even trying and hardly even running any competetive 2’s. HOW?

Hi there Gary...much thanks for your contributions...

You sound familiar...is this really your first post?!

Of course there may be question marks over certain performances and athletes, but as one previous poster puts it, until there is evidence to the contrary, we have to accept that these performances are valid...

Hey Gary

interesting to hear a contemporary opinion

sadly izzy thinks you are me under a different name

I totally agree with your views. There is something very wrong at the heart of world athletics and unless something is done about drug-taking then track and fields days are surely numbered.

Despite your best intentions izzy, simply burying your head in the sand and ignoring the unbelievable times being currently produced is in effect helping drug cheats prosper.

Unless something is done this is what WILL happen
1. A major star or three will get pulled.
2. The public will be turned off the sport
3. Sponsors will leave
4, Kids won't join athletics clubs
5. Game over

But if people like you (with 30 years experience) can't see this coming then we really are in trouble

Yes Izzy, perfromances are valid. From spectators side i enjoy those rae and the way guys Like Usain and Tyson are running, but the other athletes are annoyed with that. Its impossible to challenge them in many sprint events in the competitions, where they decided to win. thats what killing athletics in worldwide.

The same thing happened in swimming when Phelps had 17 RACES AND 9 medals and 7or 8 World records in one Olympics. I just wondering what kind of rehab he had between races.
Anyway, God bless Bolt. because if "they" will decide that Bolt has to fail drug test, like it was with M.Jones , it will ruine athletics. He is an icon now. And i don't wish him the destiny of Marion Jones.

I have heard an argument that I am unable to answer - so I throw it out here.

If it is the science of athletics that has improved the most, shouldn't the more technical events e.g. hurdles, javelin, triple jump etc have progressed more than the less "technical" events (e.g. sprinting) in recent years?

I am not really sure how to answer this unless perhaps the assumption that the sprints are not as technical (in the breakdown) is false.

Another theory I call the "london bus theory" - there seems to be a tendency in various countries and regions of a "group of athletes" coming through to dominate/do well at a particular event / sport - perhaps associated with the fruits of some junior programme - with a type of group inspiration propelling each of them forward (e.g. in Britain, there was Coe/Ovett/Cram/Elliot/Moorcroft).

gary wrote:how jamaica for example, without a male 100m olympic medal for 30 years now has 4 of the worlds fastest 6 of all time. And 5 Jamaican men got into all-time top 10 at 100m from 2008 to 2011 ? (Powell from 2005). 9 ran sub-10sec, 6 sub-9.90 (2008-2011). The best jamaican sprinter before that was Raymond Stewart with his 9.96 in 1991. and Percival Spencer with 9.98 in 1997.


Over decades of sprinting, there has always been one or two sprinters that stand out at any one time, carl lewis from calvin smith (us) linford christie (uk) maurice greene (Us), donovan bailey (canada) gatlin (us) powell, bolt (jamaica). for them to run 9.9 was running great sprinting. suddenly over 3 years, jamaica has mullings 9.8 beinning of season, nesta carter – who! running 9.79, blake 19.26, bolt 9.58, powell 9.7 without trying, let alone all the other sub 10’s. its just odd that suddenly 9.8 is seemingly easy and the 5 best running it are all jamaican, surely there would be someone else in the mix. Dix of late, yes, but no-one else.
Also, if Blake (who I genuinely do like)was beaten to bronze from gold by UK’s Harry Aitkens Areeytey in the world juniors, then surely harry AA would be up there with the worlds best now and not running 10.1 – 10.3 over and over. If Harry suddenly ran 9.8 I would be sceptical.
One more point, there is a considerable element of speed endurance to the 200. The greatest MJ took 10 years to drop from 21.5 to his 19.32, 10 years of hard, hard work. Blake, who is faster over 100m has seemingly run past MJ’s 19.32 without even trying and hardly even running any competetive 2’s. HOW?

Jamaica hasn't suddenly become a World Power in sprinting. We've discussed this so many many times. Please just read the old threads. Fed up with typing it all out. And i'm sure the anti-jamaican brigade are fed up with typing their stuff out too. Just agree to differ and move on.

The only thing we can wait on is failed drugs tests - we can't go point fingers, or else we may as well put our white hoods on and start burning the blacks again. Just forget it, and try and enjoy the sport. It is not a case of burying your head in the sand, it is a case of just getting on with it. We are not the drugs testers. We can't assume people are guilty, that is is the ethos that will spoil the sport. IT really winds me up when the news reporter or anyone on tv who is supposed to be pro-sport, states things like 'their have been so many people taking drugs'. Are you for against the sport??? Track and field has a far better record person for person than most other sports in the world. Especially ones that are this gruelling on the physical and mental side.

The people who keep on about the drugs in this sport are damaging the sport, and the bigger they are the worse it is. Yes i hope none of them are on drugs. But like in every sport there will be some. But you can't go pointing fingers.

We are the athletes and fans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_in_Jamaica

We can all read.... Jamaican's just simply aren't new to sprinting. They've always been at it. They're just not exporting or losing their best athletes anymore.

They've got more sprint history than the UK and France. And the where a lot of the USA/Canadian sprinters from?

Have you seen their sprint camps? There are hundreds of them! IT is no wonder they are producing so many of the worlds best. They will continue this for a long time. It's like the long distance in Kenya. IT is what they are naturally good at.

"The people who keep on about the drugs in this sport are damaging the sport"

But not the people who are taking the drugs?

I would say the doper apologists are far worse than those who recognise that there is a problem.

'Jamaica hasn't suddenly become a World Power in sprinting'

Yes it has. Not Jamaicans representing other countries but Jamaicans representing Jamaica.

On what do you base your argument? Gary's right in his thread above. Jamaica's men didn't win any olympic medal at 100m for 32 years or a 200m medal for 28 years until Bolt won his. What part of that dont you follow?Those are facts not supposition.

To put that into perspective Britain won 5 medals at 100m/200m in the same period

No you are wrong eo.

Herb McKenley, Arthur Wint, George Rhoden, George Kerr, Bert Cameron, Michael Fray, Len Laing, Keith Gardner, Dennis Johnson, Lennox Miller, Don Quarrie, Raymond Stewart, Roxbert Martin, Michael McDonald, Michael Green, Greg Haughton, Michael Blackwood, Brandon Simpson...

Just to name a few throughout history. Look them up if you want to learn some history.

From 1968 Jamaican male athletes still hold the WR for 4x100m for under 23 set in Mexico.

The problem for most of you is that they went through a bit of a lull in the 90's. Which is when you are comparing it against. And obviously this is when we were at our best. Try and see it unobjectively.

The Jamaicans have always been in the sprints - its in their genes. To deny that you have to be eo. Look at the facts - look up each of those athletes i mentioned. Then add to it all the athletes that they lost through to USA/Canada/UK etc... The Jamaicans have it in their blood to sprint and to sprint better than any other nation.

They now in the last 10 years have the money and the training facilities to harness that raw talent. They have huge training camps that are producing hundreds of potential sprinters. It is a way of life for them, not just going down the track for a training session. Because of the sheer amount of talent and competition in their own country it makes it tough to be the best and to even get into a trianing team.

If I'm wrong how did jamaicans living in the uk and canada win medals but not jamaicans living in jamaica?
after all jamaica has so much talent coming through its school sports days and has done so for the last 30 years I presume, and the advantageous jamaican diet (yams) has been available for the last 30 years
as Gary says, why is it only now that they have such a monopoly of super-fast times?

you know the answer as well as we do. It just doesn't fit with what you imagine is the truth.

We talk about this a lot... lol... You say one thing then i say another...

Jamaicans have been winning medals and performing well. Which 30 years are you talking about (and don't just include olympics - include all track&field events (global scale). Just look up those athletes i pointed out.

Have you looked up those people. Have you learnt anything about Jamaica yet?

Every country goes through peaks and troughs, what you have to look at is whether they are there or nearly there. Us in the UK we're nearly there, and have been since Christie retired. We were there when he was competing. Unfortunately, he didn't seem to bring anyone along with him.

EO, why do you try and smear your words? (What i imagine is the truth). Can you not have a pleasant discussion? Or do you actually have to resort to person digs/jibes and insults each time??? Come back with genuine facts that aren't skewed about Year on Year World performances. Not just Olympic medals - - If we just go on medals - that'd mean Asafa Powell wasn't that good a sprinter... it shows a bit of a skew doesn't it? Or that Carl Lewis was a better sprinter than Usain Bolt????

Come on, play nice.

english_osprey wrote:If I'm wrong how did jamaicans living in the uk and canada win medals but not jamaicans living in jamaica?

you know the answer as well as we do. It just doesn't fit with what you imagine is the truth.

It is quite noticeable that as drug testing becomes ever more stringent, UK athletes are falling further and further behind. It makes you wonder what UK athletes used to do that they cannot get away with anymore. Is that the answer you were looking for?

I find your views to be utterly ridiculous but what is unforgivable is the bias. If you are to take the (truly dim) view that truly mind boggling performances just have to be drug fuelled, why single out the sprinters? There are plenty of other outrageous records on the books such as:

Jonathan Edwards 18.29 for the triple jump ..... who has even remotely come close to this performance and how the hell did he improve by nearly a metre in his late twenties after doing th eevent for years?

Paula Radcliffe 2hrs 15:25 for the womens marathon ..... three minutes ahead of the field.

Why is it not suspicious for athletes like these to set times and distances way beyond the capability of other mortals without any criticism whereas Yohan Blake runs a few hundreths faster than Michael Jonson and he must be a doper?

Purest biased nonsense.

It's not the individuals icecold, it's the regime. Just like the East Germans in the 80s and the Chinese in the 90s.

There will always be freak performances and incredible world records. (some legit, a lot not.) It's when these performances start happening from small populations and even worse from the same training groups.

It's a bit rich that you of all people can accuse people of 'bias'. (I know what you're saying) But you make a good point about the drug testing in the UK. Doesn't really make for a level playing field when only certain countries actually test their athletes, and some go out of their way to help them 'develop their talents'.

But 40 odd posts is a good effort for you in terms of the icecold version of Godwin's Law. Eventually you'll mention Radcliffe, no matter what the discussion is about. Still obsessed.

'The Jamaicans have always been in the sprints - its in their genes.'

No, it's in the genes of their west african ancestors

Here's a genuine fact for you. No jamaican coached and living in jamaica won an olympic sprint medal for 28 years between Quarrie and Bolt

the point we are trying to make, which for some reason you won't accept is that jamaica is at present a power in sprinting but hasn't been in the past. as you know this is crucial to your argument and to all other drug defenders. if they haven't(which i have just explained) then where has the sudden dominance sprung from? Surely you see that?

By what other criteria would you measure sprinting success at a world level? Times? The first Jamaican national to hold the world 100m record?
In the history of the event? Powell in 2005

Back to the same point, jamaica has always had good sprinters, but utter world dominance from a tiny island? never
How so now? You know that as well.