Can a human being REALLY break 9 seconds in the 100m dash?

If you assume that Usain Bolt has never used PED's, and that PED's make a positive difference to all sprinters, then a PED'ed Bolt could presumably go lower than his current world record.

Add into that a perfect start, a fast track located altitude, and a favourable but legal wind, and who knows what time could be achieved.

What continues to amaze me is that GB is one of the better athletics nations and yet British 100M runners continue to struggle to run under 10 seconds for the 100. It usually makes the news when one of them achieves it.

Having said that, there have been so many positive drugs tests among the leading 100m runners of the last 30 years that the whole event is something of a sham. And to think that the 100M has always been the IAAF's 'Blue Riband' event at the Olympics and the Worlds...

Using a flying start, at least Bolt and Powell have done it at world champs. Not the same criteria but I'd imagine reaching top end speed earlier is better.

If someone can run 9.58, why not 9.57. If 9.57, why not 9.56 etc etc. Who knows where maximal human speed will top out?

larkimm wrote:

If someone can run 9.58, why not 9.57. If 9.57, why not 9.56 etc etc. Who knows where maximal human speed will top out?

I agree. Eventually someone will run 0.00 I believe. Then of course they will have more accurate timing so it may be like 0.000000333564 actually, which is achieved by running at the speed of light. Though it will be possible to run faster by using a wormhole but maybe that won't be allowed, because then the time can actually be negative.

Steve Austin has done it already.

https://youtu.be/pYZPEcwIb2c

dasdadasda wrote:

larkimm wrote:

If someone can run 9.58, why not 9.57. If 9.57, why not 9.56 etc etc. Who knows where maximal human speed will top out?

I agree. Eventually someone will run 0.00 I believe. Then of course they will have more accurate timing so it may be like 0.000000333564 actually, which is achieved by running at the speed of light. Though it will be possible to run faster by using a wormhole but maybe that won't be allowed, because then the time can actually be negative.

That seems unlikely. I'm going to have to see Ventolin post a statistical analysis before I believe it.

As of now? No. End of discussion.

Future threads.

Can a human being really break the 3:30 mile

Can a huma being really break 1:50 in the marathon

Can a human being really walk on Pluto?

No, not sub 9. All the top sprinters have pretty much the same top speed, 12 meters per second. Bolt had much better speed endurance because he started as a 200/400 runner. When he learned to start fast....BOOM 9.72 then 9.69 and eventually 9.58

We won't see the same improvements in sprinting that are possible in longer races.

Their little long-term-trend graph depends entirely on the existence of Bolt. Without him the trend gets to 9 seconds around maybe 2150, but that's assuming any such trend can be extrapolated. In particular the long period before Bolt is a solid plateau and may represent a limit that only an occasional Bolt can slightly exceed. Without Bolt a curve approximating the graph would be concave up.

The record progression doesn't exist in a vacuum of knowledge either. It is no secret how the record suddenly got from 10.2 to sub 10 in barely a decade, and then ran into a brick wall. It's possible nobody would ever have run sub 10 without amphetamines or their substitutes. Without a new wonder drug, that graph may never even get to 9.3.

no,i dont think so,not unless theyre jet propelled,or on high speed skates.

Bad Wigins wrote:

The record progression doesn't exist in a vacuum of knowledge either. It is no secret how the record suddenly got from 10.2 to sub 10 in barely a decade, and then ran into a brick wall. It's possible nobody would ever have run sub 10 without amphetamines or their substitutes. Without a new wonder drug, that graph may never even get to 9.3.

Complete and utter BS.

There is no phase of the 100 meter race that requires any type of drug. The real drug problem is idiots like you propagating the stupid drug obsession.

dasdadasda wrote:

larkimm wrote:

If someone can run 9.58, why not 9.57. If 9.57, why not 9.56 etc etc. Who knows where maximal human speed will top out?

I agree. Eventually someone will run 0.00 I believe. Then of course they will have more accurate timing so it may be like 0.000000333564 actually, which is achieved by running at the speed of light. Though it will be possible to run faster by using a wormhole but maybe that won't be allowed, because then the time can actually be negative.

Now now, let's not get silly. We all know that 9.57 is feasible. We all equally know that 0.00 is not feasible. We probably know that 8.00 is unfeasible. All we can really say is that 0.01 faster than the current record is probably feasible, and as such we don't know where the limit is until c.100 years of failure to progress is reached. By which time we'll all be dead, and no-one will care about track running any more.

I think its interesting how the human body is modifying over time. (ex. the average person today is taller than ever before). I always thought it was a ridiculous to say tall people can sprint, and Bolt has proven that, and obviously his stride length is an asset.

So, I think you will start to see taller sprinters, who have the capacity for more power development, without the loss in coordination, that will led to quicker times. How quick, I don't know.

Plus the improvement in the track surface and technology into creating spikes will help to improve times. I even expect speed suits with hoodies to come back.

Jon Orange wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

The record progression doesn't exist in a vacuum of knowledge either. It is no secret how the record suddenly got from 10.2 to sub 10 in barely a decade, and then ran into a brick wall. It's possible nobody would ever have run sub 10 without amphetamines or their substitutes. Without a new wonder drug, that graph may never even get to 9.3.

Complete and utter BS.

There is no phase of the 100 meter race that requires any type of drug. The real drug problem is idiots like you propagating the stupid drug obsession.

Yeah but think about it. Remember how after the 4 minute mile was broken, a whole bunch of guys broke it? It's a mindset thing. "Oh well if it can be done, then I can do it...I guess it's not impossible".

And you know what broke 10 ? DRUGS.

So yeah, without drugs, no one would have ever broken 10 because it would still be thought of as an impossible feat.

I'd like to see what the charts look like using the 3rd, 5th. 8th and 16th performers not just WR holder {the extremist outlier}.

My seat of the pants feeling is the trend created the average of the 3rd and 5th best performer will be a better predictor of future outliers.

Plus Auto Timer Data has a very different confidence factor than the hand timed era stats.

As an aside-- I was a slow HS sprinter (tail end of those who moved to semis)--- at best I was a 10.5/10.6 hand yards guy BUT I have two results of 10.3 that I'm sure were the result of faulty hand timers not sudden improvement.

I quote 105/10.6 as my PR btw.

Evidence has been found (in the form of fossilized footprints in mud) that cavemen could likely have destroyed Usain Bolt in a footrace.

http://www.sbnation.com/2009/10/20/1092719/cavemen-were-faster-than-usain-bolt

Now granted, a lifetime of sprinting in order to hunt and escape would be of great value. However, evidence like this shows that we may not have even begun to scratch the surface in reaching human potential.

Blahbaba wrote:I think its interesting how the human body is modifying over time. (ex. the average person today is taller than ever before). I always thought it was a ridiculous to say tall people can sprint, and Bolt has proven that, and obviously his stride length is an asset.

That is a good point. I do believe humans will get closer and closer to 0.00. By the time that happens humans may be about a mile tall. Of course the universe may have ended before that much progress takes place. That's why it's important to find or create a wormhole.

Jon Orange wrote:

There is no phase of the 100 meter race that requires any type of drug. The real drug problem is idiots like you propagating the stupid drug obsession.

Got evidence, or just shit to talk?

A 3/10 of a second drop in barely 10 years, followed by miniscule improvements in the decades since amphetamines were banned - a ban which happened to work because they are only effective in competition and are nearly impossible to mask - is powerful circumstantial evidence at the least.

Sprinters constantly being caught using "cold medicine" as a substitute only illustrates how effective the real deal was.

But by all means talk more shit if that's all you got, even more people will realize how bankrupt your position is.

Jon Orange wrote:

No, not sub 9. All the top sprinters have pretty much the same top speed, 12 meters per second. Bolt had much better speed endurance because he started as a 200/400 runner. When he learned to start fast....BOOM 9.72 then 9.69 and eventually 9.58

We won't see the same improvements in sprinting that are possible in longer races.

House centepedes have up to 15 sets of tiny legs and can travel at 0.4 meters per second.

I wonder if some gene experiment could be done where we can give usain bolt some long centepede legs. Maybe then he can go several seconds faster in the 100.