Bolt takes 41 steps vs everyone else's 44...

I'd like to question the assumption that 'everyone' else takes 44 steps. This is what the NBC announcer said last night and I have heard it before. "Everyone else takes 44." What is magic about 44? Are they trained to run exactly 44 steps per 100? Does every other sprinter in the world have the exact same stride length? They'd have to to all take the exact same number of strides. And the only differentiating factor would be start reaction and relative cadence.

Or does the announcer mean that top sprinters 'average' 44 steps? That might be true.

I don't know why this kind of thing bothers me; I'm not a statistician or anything. But I hate hearing people take a generalization and make it into a hard 'fact' without even thinking about what they're saying.

Whaaat? wrote:

Todd from Texas wrote:

Does that answer my question as to whether or not it is an established fact that Bolt takes 41 steps and all his competitors 44 in the 100 meter race?

"1) Size matters ...

It's obvious, sure, but it doesn't make it any less true. Being 6ft 5in tall allows Usain Bolt to take wider (and thus fewer) steps over a 100m race than his smaller rivals. On Sunday night he took 41 steps to win the Olympic final. Yohan Blake took 46 steps and Justin Gatlin took 42.5 steps."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/london-2012-olympics-blog/2012/aug/06/london-2012-five-reasons-usain-bolt-100m

The 41 to 44 ratio came from Ato Bolden, probably an average. Realistically, the actual amounts of each individual will vary with height.

Whaaat? wrote:

"1) Size matters ...

It's obvious, sure, but it doesn't make it any less true. Being 6ft 5in tall allows Usain Bolt to take wider (and thus fewer) steps over a 100m race than his smaller rivals. On Sunday night he took 41 steps to win the Olympic final. Yohan Blake took 46 steps and Justin Gatlin took 42.5 steps."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/london-2012-olympics-blog/2012/aug/06/london-2012-five-reasons-usain-bolt-100m

Two words to the contrary:

Francis Obikwelu

The 6'5" Obikwelu might have had the fastest top end of his time. But it didn't get him any Olympic golds. The problem for him (and most athletes that tall before Bolt) was that he didn't get out of the blocks and accelerate fast enough to win. His top end allowed him to almost catch up by the finish line...almost.

Bolt's advantage is not some step count magic or having a high top end due to being tall, but being tall and also being able to accelerate fast enough that he's not out of the race by the time he gets to that top end speed.

Being tall is not a panacea. For every Bolt and Bailey, there's a Tommie Smith or Obikwelu (and maybe Lemaitre) who can't quite get going quick enough for anything short of 200.

nyrunner1 wrote:

challenge in what? the long jump? shot putt? coz ben couldn't challenge carl clean so i don't know what you talking bout willis.

LOL

coach d wrote:

Bolt's advantage is not some step count magic or having a high top end due to being tall, but being tall and also being able to accelerate fast enough that he's not out of the race by the time he gets to that top end speed.

Yes... this is what I said to begin with. Emphasis on high turnover.

"A tall guy with long strides and high turnover rate and it's a wrap!"

This same shit was going on when Alberto Juantorena was running. People thought that only tall runners can run that fast. After that came Sebastian Coe, a short man, who ran even faster.

Leg length and stride length are only loosely related. They are running not race walking. Flight time matters.Are less strides better? Look at 2+3 Blake and Gatlin are 1 inch different in height(really need leg length but good luck getting that) running running pretty much the same time with 3.5 strides difference. And finally tall guys pop up every decade or two and everyone thinks they are the future. It is hasn't happened so far. Talent is #1 and the odds of that talent showing up in a 1 in 100 guy is a rare event. It is easy to look at bolts height and give that all the credit. His freaky muscles and tendons are more likely the reason(i.e. they generate more power and recycle it) but those are not obviously.

Whaaat? wrote:

Whaaat? wrote:

"1) Size matters ...

It's obvious, sure, but it doesn't make it any less true. Being 6ft 5in tall allows Usain Bolt to take wider (and thus fewer) steps over a 100m race than his smaller rivals. On Sunday night he took 41 steps to win the Olympic final. Yohan Blake took 46 steps and Justin Gatlin took 42.5 steps."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/london-2012-olympics-blog/2012/aug/06/london-2012-five-reasons-usain-bolt-100m

The 41 to 44 ratio came from Ato Bolden, probably an average. Realistically, the actual amounts of each individual will vary with height.

Aghast wrote:

Longer legs, longer stride, more strength, same stride rate = faster time

The key to this is more strength. Anyone that understands sprinting understands you want to put more steps down and have fast turnover because it's about accelerating, not just velocity of running.

Races like 10ks take the acceleration factor out of the equation which is why you don't need incredible strength to run that fast. It's also why longer strides work for longer distance runners because it's about turnover that's sustainable with the longest strides.

Sprints are about power mostly. Long strides mean you have to put more power down per stride to accelerate yourself at the same rate. You cover more ground, but you have less of a chance to push off that ground and accelerate rather than just maintain velocity.

This principle has always goverened sprinting. If you want to run faster (sprint) to kick in a 10k, you shorten your stride, lean forward, and increase your turnover. You're attempting to put more power down over the same distance rather than maintaining your velocity.

It's the problem that "Nuh Uh Bolt's not a doper!" people have. He defies wisdom on sprinting.

This theory guides sprinting up until acceleration doesn't control the event some tranistion around 400m. Which is where you start seeing skinnier runners (because it's not about power and acceleration). Nearly everyone in the 100m and 200m races are jacked because it's POWER that governs that race. You want more strides.

Aghast wrote:

Longer legs, longer stride, more strength, same stride rate = faster time

Grow taller and see how well that "same stride rate" part works out.

It seems like you wrote this post before Bolt existed...

If that was the advantage then all sprinters would be tall like basketball players (and call themselves the greatest athletes). It takes more force to move longer limbs and so there is also a disadvantage.

Pre is my Favorite wrote:

It seems like you wrote this post before Bolt existed...

So even though every single other sprinter on the planet through history has been governed by these rules it's more likely to you that somehow this guy figured out how to be the one that bent it rather than as we've seen dozens of times in the past the one that was cheating?

Don't worry, you'll grow up someday.

nyrunner1 wrote:

shouldn't that bailey guy have done the same? or perhaps 42? he's only about an inch shorter than bolt iirc

What about Gheorghe Muresan? He could've covered it in 35 steps!

If Bolt is cheating they all are. It can't be the whole story. He isn't the first tall record holder either. There was Lewis, then Powell. It's been shown that Bolt can actually keep his foot on the ground for longer while maintaining the same turnover, allowing him to put more energy into the ground. He has the wheels, and apparently the engine. You may suspect such a work capacity is not possible naturally, but he is innocent until proven guilty.

Dumbest thread during the Olympics. Whaaat? is an raving idiot and that's a compliment.

Yeah. Did you see that giant woman who won the women's 100?

Agreed, he's not too bright as the answer is rather easy. Stupid post.

osifjadj wrote:

Bolt has more speed endurance, he slows down less

he proved this when he danced across the line in the 100m final 4 years ago.

leggy lisa wrote:

Dumbest thread during the Olympics. Whaaat? is an raving idiot and that's a compliment.

Yet you took the time to post in it. Why thank you! Exactly how leggy are you? I'm interested. :)