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

Hi subfive--

It just slipped through the cracks.

I will concede that by the normal and ordinary usage of the term "running", that most people consider sprinting as running.

But I don't, I still think they are different activities, although the motion is similar.

And I don't think it's time-dependent, either. I think that a real sprint can result in a 10-flat 100m, and in a 12-second 100m, depending on who does it.

Also, I think it possible to run a fast 100m, but not a very fast 100m.

I think a 400m is fast run for some, and a long sprint for others, that deteriorates into a run somewhere around 300m.

Somebody like Mo cannot sprint. Even when he's going his fastest, he's not sprinting, he is running very quickly. He lacks the musculature to produce a sprinting motion, just as a sprinter has an excess of musculature that does not permit a 27:00 10k.

The primary energy systems used are different, as well. Running has a certain efficiency, whereas sprinting (short sprinting, at least) sacrifices efficiency for speed. At the end of a 10k, you see a 400m "sprint", or a 200m "sprint", but you never see a real 100m short sprint. Ever.

Jeilan was maybe the closest one, and came really close, even crossed the line a few times IMO.

But it's really splitting hairs. The crossover area is somewhere right around maybe 300m, which is what makes the 400m such an interesting event.

But I agree that, in the general view, you are quite correct.

@ Sprintgeezer,

You're a tough case! You state: "Somebody like Mo cannot sprint".

So a12.9 100m FAT by Mo is not sprinting....if it was a maximum effort???

A high school girl's performance in the 100m, which yields 12.9 is not sprinting??

Of course, in both cases they were running.

when are iaaf coming to come clean about sarms !!!

they must have many a tainted blood sample from

any major champs since 2007 ,

and london olympics must of been a high point for use .

this is one of many ways to not implicate bolt ,just taint

a great many and dont name any names and say that cant get away with it close to major meets or champs in future.

likely senario i dought but iaaf are a bunch of two faced

lying ........ ,

one of the most popular of them has a pretty short half life

so makes testing difficult but i sure could come up with a

more sensitive test and catch even the more careful of athletes that knows the safe window to stop use .

only with advent of even stronger androgens ,will the body of your 6' 7'' and up athletes be able to take

stresses of sprint events ,dont see it for awhile .

If you read what ive said in context the answer would be clear. Being tall alone was never the solution. The point was that if a person was taller AND possessed the same relative ability as someone shorter, then height does become advantageous. So this rhetoric of claiming "well 7 footers would be the fastest if thats the case" is something a person says if they havent been paying attention.

The first quote is in reference to the square cube law. Has nothing to do with being faster if your taller or bigger.

The second quote is from a different poster since I didnt say that.

The 3rd quote means exactly what it says. However if you read in the context I wrote it, it would be clear that I wasnt saying height alone made the difference.

4th and 5th quotes are explained by the first comment I made in this response.

Ive actually provide plenty of evidence but the problem is that if you're in no way interested in believing otherwise than its easy to see why you would miss it.

Heres an experiment.....or better yet a question

You have two rubber bands. Only difference between them is there length. One is 6" and one is 8". If you stretch both to their max and release, which would generate the most force?

Sprintgeezer

Why are you struggling with this so? You really don't understand what we are seeing here with Usian Bolt? It's not obvious his advantage is his stride? You don't see that? It's as if you've never seen him run. You look foolish.

paste

NSA: Do you think that tall sprinters have an advantage? What would you recommend in order to adapt technique and race distribution to the given anthropometrics?

GLEN MILLS: They only have an advantage if they can master the technique and the different stages. With sprinters who are explosive, their advantage comes in the first half of the race; the taller sprinters tend to be at a disadvantage in the first half of the race. If a shorter sprinter is able to maximize his\her stride length in the second half it is difficult for them to be beaten. However, most of them tend to tighten up in the maximum velocity phase or once they feel the presence of a taller sprinter. This is why athletes who have good top-­end speed win most 100m races. There is a balance between the tall and the short, but a lot of it is lost, especially for the short sprinters, in the psychological preparation that tends to affect them in the competition itself.

Hopefully you learned something.

1) That is a completely ridiculous experiment/question. The fact that you bring it up as being somehow relevant very strongly suggests that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

2) But let's pretend in this land of inapplicable analogies of yours that it IS a relevant experiment. Then I would ask the incredibly obvious question - what about a 10" band? What about a 100" band? What about a 10,000" band?

3) I would hope that you would see the obvious at this point. But you have failed to do so in the past. If your analogy is any good then the 1,200" Bolt would be the fastest of all.

4) Which shows that your analogy is just plain idiotic

Now, if you don't mind, it is back to reality time. You see, you have absolutely no way of knowing where the maximum point is on the curve that I described earlier. Yet, (with the intuitively obvious assumption that f(x) is monotonically increasing up to fmax and then monotonically decreasing thereafter) you are essentially making the claim that fmax is at or to the right of 77".

Now, I await your evidence that fmax is at or to the right of 77". Because if all you can do is hand wave (for the umpteenth time) then anyone could take those same handwaves and apply them to any point x1 to make the claim that fmax must be to the right of x1. And yet, fmax is most definitely NOT to the right of every x1. Which gives the lie to your entire argument that it is anything but handwaving.

Try to think more clearly in the future.

Why would 1200" Usain be "too" big for anything?

That's like big enough to have T-Rex as a pet on a leash.

Being proportioned properly, why would 1200" guy not be able to "be"? Those legs would be quite substantial. Like steel pillars any bridge would be happy to rest on.

I think his cadence would be lower, but strides would be rather long. A powerwalk would be hard for 77" Usain to keep up with.

Bigger = faster. And he'll do a higher box jump. Even if not proportionately. Just tucking those 600" legs quickly under him will suffice for a 200" leapless box jump.

subfive--

It's not important, I just made the distinction as an aid to describing first why a guy like Rudisha could never go 10.2, or why distance elites like Mo could never go 10.0x

Really, it's not important.

I will agree with you, if you like...everybody can sprint, if they try.

Skater wrote:

Why would 1200" Usain be "too" big for anything?

That's like big enough to have T-Rex as a pet on a leash.

Being proportioned properly, why would 1200" guy not be able to "be"? Those legs would be quite substantial. Like steel pillars any bridge would be happy to rest on.

I think his cadence would be lower, but strides would be rather long. A powerwalk would be hard for 77" Usain to keep up with.

Bigger = faster. And he'll do a higher box jump. Even if not proportionately. Just tucking those 600" legs quickly under him will suffice for a 200" leapless box jump.

Please go back to the beginning. Look up the incredible strength of ants. Then learn why a 6' long, 200 lb ant would NOT be walking around picking up and tossing around cars.

Once you have brought your comprehension level up to that point the answer to your question should become obvious to you. If not, there is no hope for you.

Good luck.

would be the simplest explanation.

Skater wrote:

Why would 1200" Usain be "too" big for anything?

That's like big enough to have T-Rex as a pet on a leash.

Being proportioned properly, why would 1200" guy not be able to "be"? Those legs would be quite substantial. Like steel pillars any bridge would be happy to rest on.

I think his cadence would be lower, but strides would be rather long. A powerwalk would be hard for 77" Usain to keep up with.

Bigger = faster. And he'll do a higher box jump. Even if not proportionately. Just tucking those 600" legs quickly under him will suffice for a 200" leapless box jump.

never looked at this thread before

such a drivel topic worth not even bother opening

somehow it got 300+ ???!!!

if an answer was required to this drivel, here is one

a 6'5 guy running 9.58 with some wind is

= to a scaled up version of a 5'10 guy with same wind

to maybe

( based on length compared to mass is a cubic relationship as mass is

volume * density

& volume is cubic v length which is linear then add another reducing power for air resistance -> ^(1/4)

for assumed homunculuses

& then we add in factor of scaled down surface area/volume of ^(2/3)

9.58 * (( 77/70 )^(1/4))^(2/3)

=

9.73

ventolin^3 wrote:

complete drivel masquerading as science

Fixed a few typos for you.

1. You say an experiment using rubber bands is ridiculous but in order for you to make that comment you would have had to ignore the comment where I said..

"Consider the fact that his tendons will stretch and rebound over a longer distance and how that plays a role in speed maintenance......now maybe you'll realize that being 6'5" makes a world of a difference....when taken into context."

So as you can see, you conveniently left out the portion of my quote that would not only add context to my comment, but would also make sense of the rubber band comparison.

2. Speaking of inapplicable.....you want to dismiss the comment where I said this..

"No the ant actually wouldn't be capable of any of those things but i assume you already knew that. The initial problem began the moment you ignored the original point in favor of being the pretentious type that frequents this place."

and this....

"Wouldn't it be far more logical to use examples where the clear and obvious effect of the s.c. law weren't in effect....We're talking about human beings that are within inches of each other. Not fairies and the nephilim......

Essentially that comment says is that i'm fully aware of the effects of scaling up and scaling down. I chose two rubber band lengths that were similar in length because we're dealing with humans that are similar in height as opposed to an exaggeration that has no real application when dealing with real people of slightly varying heights.

I also said...

"I would remind you that no one has suggest that Bolt's height is the sweet spot or that anyone is aware of this sweet spot. Which in essence means that I don't disagree that we WOULDN'T KNOW. This isn't a question of whether the 77" Bolt is the maximized version. It's a question of whether the 77" Bolt is physiologically a superior sprinter than the 70" Tyson or the 74" Asafa or the 70" Ben Johnson. Drugs or not...."

3. Your continued assumption that I believe that a super sized Bolt would reign supreme is flat out foolish and simply dishonest seeing as how i've said and agreed that a Bolt of that size wouldn't function. I sincerely hope that you're just trolling cuz this is rather sad. Which is why I said...

"Which is why I explained the analogy about the ant being unnecessary. Once again, we're discussing creatures of similar size not creatures on opposite ends of the spectrum. Bolt isn't a ridiculously larger scaled version of anyone as the 1" version would be compared to the 1200" version. It would be far better to compare one ant to a slightly bigger ant or greyhound to a whippet."

4. The analogy was plain, simple and relevant if you've been seriously reading.

You can wait forever for this evidence cuz you won't be getting it. I told you already that I don't know, and I agree that I don't know. But then again I never said that I knew.

The Fixer Upper wrote:Fixed a few typos for you

never needed fix

but fix woud help responder :

p!ss-ant requiring urea

that shoud assuage your dietary requirements...

Don't waste your time, he doesn't understand sprinting.

ventolin^3 wrote:

more nonsense

There you go.