But...but...but...Bolt is 6'5"!!!

Whaaat: "For a guy that positioned himself as the moral spokesman against doping, Gay is a disgrace. The fact that he is now playing the smoke and mirrors game is saddening."

+1, except it should be a guy "who" positioned himself

Lets say Bolt is a 1 in million talent. There are 1.35 million males in Jamica. So you would expect 1 of them. But only 1/4 of the population is 18-35. And only like .3% is 6'5. Do the math and you will only come up with a 6'5 guy that can sprint doesn't happen very often. If you lower the speed barrier so instead of being a 1 in a million to 1 in 100k, you start getting to the fast nfl guys (and actually there are not many 6'4 speedsters. guys like Moss and Calvin Johnson are exceptions). And most of those guys don't run track because track happens during football season. Would you skip summer sessions which will help you get a job paying 5 million a year if you can be top 30 in the United States for one where you need to be top 10 to make anything close to that. Not a smart move.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

WHY IS BOLT THE ONLY 6'5" WR-HOLDER PHENOMENON TO COME OUT OF JAMAICA?

Sprintgeezer wrote:

I can say that Jam is a hell hole. I have been there

Okay, I'll take the bait. When, where and why did you go?

Sprintgeezer wrote:

I divide such activities into 3 types:

walking

jogging

running

sprinting

each with its own particular movement, training, special adaptations, movements, range

Sprinting is more than just "very fast running", as running is more than just very fast jogging, etc.

.

I know this issue is a bit off the issue about Bolt's height. But since you usually get down in the weeds on whatever you're analyzing, I was a bit bothered by your forceful and false claim that, "sprinting isn't running".

Why are you making this claim? Sprinting is obviously a form of running, jogging is a form of running. Walking is not runnning.

Moving bipedly by having both feet off the surface for a moment in the stride as one moves forward or backward is running. Sprinting just is running at or near one's maximum speed over a relativly short distance.

Saying sprinting isn't running is like saying freestyling or backstroking is not swimming.

When a person gives a maximum effort for 100m and clocks 14.0 seconds...were they sprinting?[/quote].

Oh, you did not reply to this point.

Bolt might be a juicer. But your circumstantial type arguments are NOT proof! In my view, the odds are, he has used PEDs of some kind to reach his great performances. But it is not certain that he has used PEDs.

Now, could I get a concession on the "sprinting isn't running" claim? It'll help with your credibility.

asdf-

Once again, you perfectly start out assuming what you set out to prove:

"Let's say Bolt is a 1 in a million talent."

While this may have been true in juniors, while others were still developing and growing, there is no good evidence that it is the case in the senior ranks, where others are trained and developed.

For sure he is a 1 in a million performer, but that's a different thing.

Once again, I believe that he might very well have been one of the best ever, or the very best ever, cleanly--but we will never know, unless he some day admits that he had maxxed-out at a relatively pedestrian time, or that he never would have been able to have continued competing had he not used.

I just think that it is pretty cool that a thread that started with "But...but...but...Bolt..." is still going strong, hundreds of posts later.

From now on in my gym class we'll be playing But But Bolt. Way cool.

Oh, Allan Wells should be added to the fast white sprinter list on page 6 of this thread, with his 10.11 (+1.4) PR in Moscow.

Which changes nothing. For white guys, as for black guys, somewhere between 5'9" and 6'0" seems to be a sweet spot in the 100m.

Obviously we are guessing a lot with talent (and it isn't equaly distributed) but there are something like 300+ million guys 18-35 in the world. Given the number that have run sub 10, I feel pretty comfortable calling bolt a 1 in a million talent. If it makes you feel better Jamica probably has 10x the expected talent. Doesn't change the fact that there are not a lot of 6'5 guys with 1 in a million talent (or even 1 in 100k talent).Unless Bolt is getting better drugs than everyone else (or you think Blake isn't getting the same stuff), he is clearly the best 100m guy of all time. I am suspect of everyone from jamica, whose coach has been associated with drugs, who drops .2s of a second after 25, and so on. Does leave a lot of names on the sub 9.9 list and I personally don't think drugs are worth more than .3 or seconds.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

asdf-

Once again, you perfectly start out assuming what you set out to prove:

"Let's say Bolt is a 1 in a million talent."

While this may have been true in juniors, while others were still developing and growing, there is no good evidence that it is the case in the senior ranks, where others are trained and developed.

For sure he is a 1 in a million performer, but that's a different thing.

Once again, I believe that he might very well have been one of the best ever, or the very best ever, cleanly--but we will never know, unless he some day admits that he had maxxed-out at a relatively pedestrian time, or that he never would have been able to have continued competing had he not used.

1. Your accusation was that i'm in some way affiliated with Bolt or Jamaica and that's why I take this stance. Regardless of whether I coach or not, that assumption is just not true. My interest is critical thought....

2. Don't know what you're talking about here

3. The simple question here, is whether or not you think Shaquille Oneal is a better athlete than Yao Ming. I don't need to make a specific argument when something is such an exaggerated case. It's pretty obvious that Shaq is the better athlete. Shooting free throws is a skill that anyone can learn, athleticism isn't taught.

You actually did say that Bolt shouldn't be able to do what he does. This was what prompted me to point out the stereotypes in assuming tall athletes are SUPPOSED to be bad in certain areas. You want to point to drugs being the sole contributor to his fastest times, while i'm saying that even if he is on drugs, his physiology plays a huge role in his performance as well. Meaning if he was 5'9" he's more than likely not running 9.58.

And no Spearmon can't accelerate. The fact that you dispute this is just odd. Using 6.66 for a guy who's run 19.9, 19,8, 19.7, and 19.6 is rather sad. 6.66 gives you on average a 10.3.....he literally has two seasons where he's broken 10.1.....that's not a resume of someone who can accelerate. And your lack of understand is further proven by the idea that SE is an athletic ability......not only that, it has absolutely nothing to do with height. Athletes have terrible SE when they're short, and terrible SE when they're tall. And vice versa. Powell being able to accelerate well while Spearmon can't is an observable and measurable activity. Spearmon lolly gaggin' on the curve and storming down the straight isn't a measure of SE. Tyson or

Stop with this cop out about Bolt's clean years. You and I both know you're talking 08 and beyond. Regardless of the fact, he's ALWAYS been able to accelerate. At no point in Bolts career has anyone ever said "that guy can't accelerate(which was my point). And what years was he running over 10.0? You do realize he ran the 100m once in 07(10.03) and never before then right? Meaning there was no precedence to say he was running this and then just dropped. You're sounding like Carl Lewis now.

4. If you read sprintzone like you say, you'll see that I actually called Bolt to be running 9.8 in 07. Questioning me in terms of real analysis in the midst of the gems you've been posting is just comedy. The contradiction is that you keep trying to get people to be up in arms about Bolt potentially being on drugs while saying he's likely the fastest clean athlete.

5. My points were based on facts. Ben Johnson did indeed run his time in korea with a 1.1w. Which means the time was slower on the basic level than what you give it credit for. Same goes for Tyson.....his fastest time is 9.69 with a 2.0w which is barely under 9.8 without the wind. Which leaves his 9.71 in Berlin. Both of which are a long way from 9.58(9.62).....Asafa Powell's mechanical flaws aren't a matter of opinion. It's the single greatest inhibitor of his overall physical potential. Had that issue been corrected, he's less injured, as well as Bolts greatest threat. Yohan is the only matter of opinion here. And mine is that he's not running 9.58 with or without drugs. Your points weren't based off of anything but assumptions.

6. I didn't ignore anything. I only selected a few criteria to make a point. Bolt being 6'5" isn't the sole contributor here. His being 6'5" AND being built the way he is, plays a role.

This poster is making my point....

"The only fair way to do is to ask if a a shorter or taller version of the SAME individual would perform better or worse. Maurice Greene is not a shorter Carl Lewis and also Bolt is taller Tyson Gay."

I don't get what liking Dwight Howard has anything to do with anything.....

Are you saying Bolt's height is a non factor? If you are you are wrong.

Deacon, your post is so misrepresentational in so many ways, I can't even respond to it substantively.

Clearly you have insufficient reading comprehension to understand even those assertions that I have made in the most direct possible manner, in the plainest possible language.

There is no basis for dialogue with you, unless you re-read my posts and fix the glaring errors in your most recent post.

Sorry, but you're just too much.

A theme is emerging on this thread: posters who are almost entirely incapable of simple reading comprehension, coherent thought, and cogent argument.

There are no possible meaningful responses to your posts other than those that I have just given--those that direct you to re-examine yourself.

Again, I am sorry it has to be this way--not sorry for you, but sorry for myself and others who are willing and able to argue.

As for you, you're not really arguing, you are instead pontificating--for to engage in real argument leaves open the possibility of being convinced, a possibly which you reflexively, or assiduously, foreclose.

So you admit you're wrong about Bolts stride being a factor?

BTW, for readers of this thread who aren't already aware, there is a sprint forum called sprintzone, where Deacon posts under that same moniker.

And just like here, he has left other posters frustrated with his utter lack of comprehension...you can go there and read his back-and-forth with a big-time poster named "Brutal", concerning Powell's recurring failure to perform when it matters, where Brutal quite rightly tells him essentially the same thing I've just told him here.

There is some good discussion over there, though, some really knowledgeable posters--and some nutjobs, of course. No, I don't post there, and no, I don't copy anything from that forum, although I do like to read it now and then.

I'd love to see Brutal over here, the guy knows his stuff.

Siding with Brutal as a beacon of wisdom is a joke for so many reasons. And you call him a "big time poster"......Hes actually considered a joke to most. That thread regarding Asafa reads a whole lot different to coaches and athletes who have some sense. Brutals ideology is the root cause of wasted talent and ruined careers.....side with him if you want.

Its also funny that you say ive left poster(s) here puzzled because its only you that has argued yet you have multiple posters criticizing you. Trying to win support by telling everyone where I post is pretty sad because I was never trying to hide it in the first place.

Brutal has been posting in this thread but im sure you already knew that.

Its ironic that you say that I leave no room to be convinced yet its you that is absolutely certain fhat Bolt is on drugs and that his physiology plays little to no part clean or dirty.

Dont tell me to reread your post when you seem to purposely ignore certain points in favor of cherry picking those you think you can argue. You seem to

have the familiar reaction of attack or spin when your faced with questions that require critical thought. In most cases youve simply resorted to anger and name calling. In this case I understand why you don't. ....but you're doing a good job at pretending.

No one else is arguing/debating with me....why do yoh keep trying to pretend that you have a bandwagon of support and im being attacked on all fronts?

"The only fair way to do is to ask if a a shorter or taller version of the SAME individual would perform better or worse."

This is a hilariously illogical criterion.

Please see definition of "same".

Im sure if you genuinely understand the context that the original poster of that quote intended, then this sad attempt of yours would have seemed pointless. Three words that have been used in this thread which are key that you either don't know the definition of or you simply want to troll.....

Scale or Scale model

Ratio

Proportion

Pointing out the Obvious wrote:

"The only fair way to do is to ask if a a shorter or taller version of the SAME individual would perform better or worse."

This is a hilariously illogical criterion.

Please see definition of "same".

I LOLed, too.