That's pretty good.
I ran a 17.9 for 200 in high school but was never much good at 100 and don't recall being under 9.5 seconds.
That's pretty good.
I ran a 17.9 for 200 in high school but was never much good at 100 and don't recall being under 9.5 seconds.
consider the latest move by the Jamaican federation to divert
the attention, everything points at an assisted doping program. It doesn't make sense that a small nation has this
kind of depth and beating American sprinters (both male and female) who are not exactly known to be clean.
Sorry lads.
After Beijing last year, didn't a bunch of scientists predict how fast he could've gone then, and how fast the 100m could get? Curious if anyone remembers what they said.
please be clean......if your dirty....you really blow
Where was he two years ago? He was a teenager
wc100 wrote:
I'm sorry, this may have been discussed, but where was Bolt 2 years ago? He was still the same height, probably a little lighter, but he has now emerged from a mediocre 100m guy to world record holder? Barely under 10, if even, to 9.58. Anyone who thinks he is clean is a moron.
Not much of a track fan? He was running 200s absurdly fast when he was 16. Two years ago he started running 100s, and he was definitely not mediocre. He went from one of the best in the world in an event he'd never run to the best in the world. Not especially surprising.
best ever fot place 1-2-3-5-6 & 7
Ramzi just blasted a 9.5 in the streets of Rabat.
Bolt better watch out 2012.
heat wrote:
wc100 wrote:I'm sorry, this may have been discussed, but where was Bolt 2 years ago? He was still the same height, probably a little lighter, but he has now emerged from a mediocre 100m guy to world record holder? Barely under 10, if even, to 9.58. Anyone who thinks he is clean is a moron.
Not much of a track fan? He was running 200s absurdly fast when he was 16. Two years ago he started running 100s, and he was definitely not mediocre. He went from one of the best in the world in an event he'd never run to the best in the world. Not especially surprising.
AT junior 200s
19.93 Usain Bolt
20.04 Ramil Guliyev
20.07 Lorenzo Daniel
20.13 Roy Martin
20.16A Riaan Dempers
20.18 Walter Dix
Yes he has the WJR; that's not quite a lock for 9.6
wineurtle wrote:
best ever fot place 1-2-3-5-6 & 7
Short track!!!
And they were all eating turtle soup!!
Certainly not a lock. But the guy called him "mediocre." I'm saying he set a precedent for being the best in the world.
The Informant wrote:
After Beijing last year, didn't a bunch of scientists predict how fast he could've gone then, and how fast the 100m could get? Curious if anyone remembers what they said.
Perfect athlete's 100m sprint time calculated
13:32 28 November 2008 by David Robson
Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps slashed world records in this year's Olympics, but eventually athletes will reach the limits of the human body, making it much harder to trump previous performances.
The fastest possible time for the 100 metres will be 9.48 seconds, according to new research.
Mark Denny from Stanford University in Pacific Grove, California, examined performance records for greyhounds, racing horses, and human athletes from the 1920s to the present day. He found that for various greyhound and horse races, the top speeds reached a plateau between the 1940s and the 1970s.
This may be because fierce selective breeding helped the animals to reach an optimum body type for racing. Improved training methods have helped female sprinters to reach their optimum performances too, with increasingly fewer significant improvements since the 70s.
Male track athletes haven't yet reached a plateau in this way, but fitting the data to a mathematical model that matches the other results, Denny predicts future male sprinters will at best shave 0.21 seconds off Usain Bolt's current world record of 9.69 seconds for the 100 metres.
Female marathon runners seem even closer to reaching their plateau, with the projected future world record just 2 minutes 44 seconds shorter than Paula Radcliffe's current record.
Abbe Brady, a sports scientist from the University of Gloucestershire in the UK, points out that while it's possible that human performances will reach a plateau in this way, we are still changing the way we train and select athletes, so the predicted values may be conservative.
Journal reference: Journal of Experimental Biology
(DOI: 10.1242/jeb.024968)
10.03 in 2007 to 9.58 in 2009 . You are on and smoking the same stuff as Bolt
no. Just shifting focus from 200m to 100m:)
wc100 wrote:
10.03 in 2007 to 9.58 in 2009 . You are on and smoking the same stuff as Bolt
In all fairness, that is probably only cannabis.
Just a stunning race. I remember back in the early 90's when Obadele Thompson ran 9.69 with a howling Texas wind at his back to set the "all conditions" world best. It was such a cartoonish time, way ahead of the world record, and people got a good chuckle out of it. Clearly no one could run that fast under legal conditions.
To think that Bolt just beat that mark by a tenth of a second is astounding.
no just getting a better needle and drugs nobody knows how to test for yet
He had run the 100 a lot...he was never as good at it as he was at 200 at it when he was young...or until ____________________ started to be ______ into his ____ and thats that.
Four Caribbean’s in the first five.
What a refreshing difference they bring to sprinting.
Notice their light-hearted banter and good humour at the start - as compared to the swaggering, arrogant, in-your-face strutting we used to witness from previous, typical American line-ups.
MVrunner wrote:
Just a stunning race. I remember back in the early 90's when Obadele Thompson ran 9.69 with a howling Texas wind at his back to set the "all conditions" world best. It was such a cartoonish time, way ahead of the world record, and people got a good chuckle out of it. Clearly no one could run that fast under legal conditions.
To think that Bolt just beat that mark by a tenth of a second is astounding.
I got the same chuckles watching Bolt today. Our sport is now a certified freak show.