|Pages: | 1 | 2 ||
I agree with their conclusion that AD wouldn't beat Bolt, but the following is just lazy:
"Several years of dedicated football training later, he recorded a 4.38 second 40-yard dash at the 2007 NFL combine, a time that roughly converts to about 11.98 seconds for 100 meters. Had he run that time in this year's Olympic final, he would have finished more than two full seconds behind Bolt, and just barely ahead of former world record-holder Asafa Powell, who limped to an eighth place finish in 11.99 seconds after suffering a groin injury. To find an Olympiad where Peterson's time would have earned him the gold, you'd have to go back to 1896, where Thomas Burke broke the tape in 12 seconds flat."
I know their numbers are based on assuming the same average speed for 100m that Peterson ran for 40 yds., but do they not understand that is not a "rough conversion"? I am sure AD can run a faster time than a mediocre JV high school sprinter.
Many people including us think it's a poor conversion to say the least.
Here is a great email we got. Not sure if he wants his name out there so I'll leave it anonymous for now.
That email inspired me to contact that Wall Street Journal as we know a few people there as they've quoted us in the past. My email to them read in part:
true. It is like when Wilt Chamberlain said he could defeat Mr. Ali if they would get into the ring. A reporter asked Ali what would happen if he got the chance to take on Mr. Chamberlain.
|Also wrote the WSJ|
So incorrect as you are averaging out the slowest three 10 meter segements of Bolt's 100m. I have the splits:
Reaction Time: .146
time to 10m: 1.89
time to 20m: 2.89
time to 30m: 3.78
time to 40m: 4.64
time to 60m: 6.31 (Most impressive split as his top end speed is superior to anyone)
His 40yard time is around 4.28 or 4.33 depending on how you estimate
The discussion here is the fact that the numbers that the WSJ posted are absolutely incorrect. I'm blown away that any one would be confortable with the numbers that they posted. Stop speculating what AP could run (not AD) and take note that there are multiple people in the NFL who, with the same training as Bolt, could easily break 10 seconds in the 100m. I'm not saying that any of them could beat him but I am saying that because they train for football they are at a distinct disadvantage.
I competed with the return guy from the Detroit Lions (yes he has struggled of late) when I was in college. He ran 6.75 in the 60m dash but could only manage a 10.8 in the 100m dash. Suffice to say that his 60m dash time was far superior to this 100m time. I would imagine that Bolt might struggle against a few of these people that are superior over 40-60m.
In closing I had an athlete that played football for me that ran 6.82 and ran 10.52 in the 100m dash in 39 degree weather in rain at the end of the year. I would guess that in great weather and absent the grueling, freezing headwind he would have been able to run in the mid 10.40. He was no Adrian Peterson. I'm still guessing that Adrian, with some training (at least 2-3 months) would be able to put up some 10.3 or 10.2 times. I do this for a job so consider me the expert in the current field unlike all of you distance runners who think strength equals speed. Not when it comes to sprinting. Look at what Mo Farah did in the 100m dash. Absolute embarrassment. Power always wins when the distance is short!
And to clarify, I wrote the aforementioned email.
Mr. V, I don't think anyone here is arguing with you. We all agree that Peterson would probably be much faster than 11.98, but that he is a football player who trains for that, not for sprinting 100m. So, there really is no need to insult distance runners specifically about this.
On the other hand, we should maybe take you to task for calling Letsrun.com a respectable website. Hahahaha. Just kidding.
Thanks for sending the email above.
I can tell you this:
I'm a 100m man, straight up. Minimal speed endurance, lots of power and top end, much like a football player. Here are my bests:
40yd: 4.36 (timing lights)
30m: 3.68 (timing lights)
The only conceivable way Petersen runs 11.98 is if he has freak power to weight ratio and just lumbers to a ridiculous 40, then completely gasses because he's 300 pounds. Since we know this not to be the case, the claim of 11.98 is ludicrous.
You had done "absolutely no training" prior to entering that competition?
Hadn't run ANY short sprints in practice at all??
Hadn't done ANY lifting for your legs recently??
Hadn't done ANY drills or plyos of any sort??
So basically, after being completely sedentary (that's the definition of "absolutely no training") for a substantial amount of time, you hopped in a decathlon?
Looking at it from the opposite direction, Usain Bolt's 40m split when he ran 9.58 was 4.65 including reaction time which is about 4.34 through 40 yards. So the difference in 40-yard performance between the two is essentially whatever factor you want to use for the differences between FAT timing and whatever timing procedure is used in the NFL combine. That's no small difference, but Peterson likely could have been at least a national caliber sprinter had he chosen to go that route.
Why do you disagree with Rojo's calculation of 4.44? I thought his math was pretty solid.
The honest answer is that I didn't read all of Rojo's post, but I followed the same procedure he describes. However, I think he has an arithmetic error in his calculation. 3.78 seconds through 30 meters looks right, but assuming constant speed through the 30-40m segment gives 6.576m/10m*0.87s = 0.57 seconds. So 3.78+0.57 = 4.35 seconds through 36.576m (40 yards). For what it's worth, the meters to inches conversion I used off the top of my head was also slightly off which is how I came up with 4.34 seconds previously.
None of which changes the general result which is that while Bolt is significantly faster, Peterson is pretty damn fast.
|Pages: | 1 | 2 ||