Correct.
Gay took 45 steps, Bolt 41, and the latter got to the line first. Killed him on stride length.
Correct.
Gay took 45 steps, Bolt 41, and the latter got to the line first. Killed him on stride length.
historically speaking, 100 m runners average 6 foot.
before bolt, everyone thought that 6.5 was too tall for 100 or even 200.
after bolt, now it's like, you gotta be really tall to get the record....
there is one bolt.
back in the day, there was secretariat. a huge horse, with the largest heart on record. this horse got faster as the race went along, which is unheard of.
it is like an 800 guy going, 26, 26,24,23 in an 800 (each 200m).
no exaggeration.
incredible article
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Secretariat
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Secretariat
runfastrunfar wrote:
Although considerably shorter Andrei De Grasse also was a basketball player. The ONLY reason he runs track is because he could not find four other guys to play with him to form a team for his high school basketball squad. The basketball coach told him there was no team since he was the only guy to show up for practice.
Ah, the ONLY reason Andre De Grasse puts in hundreds of hours of hard training to be a track star is because he couldn't find 4 friends in High School. Word has it, if he found some friends today he would drop sprinting in an instant and take his 5ft 9 ass straight into the NBA!
You are all assuming you know what tall is.
Taller than you, is not necessarily tall. And just like in fitting a person to a bicycle the lever lengths make the differnece. and all 6'3" sprinters are not the same.
And of course then you have natuaral abilities. Not everyone equal. Its why some peopel get laid, and others don't
Absolutely, if you have height then that's like the icing on the cake.
Up until the point where height matters, fast-twitch muscles are the dominating factor. A 5'8" guy with 5% better fast-twitch muscles than a 6'4" guy will be faster over sprint distances. I'm sure that's not the correct quantification, but you get the point.
And LetsRun forgets how slow the average person is. The average non-overweight guy could not break 30 seconds for 200 meters if you have him a month to train for it.
Of course wrote:
runfastrunfar wrote:Although considerably shorter Andrei De Grasse also was a basketball player. The ONLY reason he runs track is because he could not find four other guys to play with him to form a team for his high school basketball squad. The basketball coach told him there was no team since he was the only guy to show up for practice.
Ah, the ONLY reason Andre De Grasse puts in hundreds of hours of hard training to be a track star is because he couldn't find 4 friends in High School. Word has it, if he found some friends today he would drop sprinting in an instant and take his 5ft 9 ass straight into the NBA!
lmao, classic.
longjack wrote:
historically speaking, 100 m runners average 6 foot.
before bolt, everyone thought that 6.5 was too tall for 100 or even 200.
after bolt, now it's like, you gotta be really tall to get the record....
there is one bolt.
back in the day, there was secretariat. a huge horse, with the largest heart on record. this horse got faster as the race went along, which is unheard of.
it is like an 800 guy going, 26, 26,24,23 in an 800 (each 200m).
no exaggeration.
incredible article
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Secretariathttp://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Secretariathttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoFquax2F-khttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7-6_94SHK4
Not really. Secretariat only went faster in that one race. Your example is an exaggeration.
He was also a large horse but by no means really huge.
0bi wrote:
Of course wrote:Ah, the ONLY reason Andre De Grasse puts in hundreds of hours of hard training to be a track star is because he couldn't find 4 friends in High School. Word has it, if he found some friends today he would drop sprinting in an instant and take his 5ft 9 ass straight into the NBA!
lmao, classic.
Every kid thinks they are NBA material.
Ran his first track meet (100m - 10.8) in basketball shoes and basketball shorts and still won.
Nope, not even in the US, and he actually ran 10.9 in shorts and spikes, I could list at least four sports with much better potential athletes for T&F then the NBA that steal (arguably) talent from T&F.
Nope wrote:
Nope, not even in the US, and he actually ran 10.9 in shorts and spikes, I could list at least four sports with much better potential athletes for T&F then the NBA that steal (arguably) talent from T&F.
It's a pretty weak argument honestly, basically apocryphal, with the exceptional case here and there used to try to prove the point (in this instance it's De Grasse).
I've heard this almost exclusively from those attempting to rationalize the recent sudden Jamaican sprint rise over U.S. sprinters - as if the cream of USA sprinting - better than Gay, Gatlin, Bromell - are actually sprinting around baseball diamonds and up and down basketball courts. It's not the USA under-performing- this is just misdirection - it's Jamaican exceptionalism, as in outlier status. The numbers tell the story better than anything else could, and they don't lie.
The USA's answer to exceptionalism is not currently in other sports. Football is a great example to show this, as it's easily known who the fastest players are. Recent speedsters who played the game in college - Jeff Demps, Trindon Holliday - didn't impact on the international scene before retreating to football. In fact, they generally trailed Walter Dix in impact, who himself briefly made a mark in 2008 with Olympic Bronze in both the 100m and 200m.
The USA is just fine with the sprinters it has, and those coming through the pipeline. Talent isn't the problem in USA sprinting, and that's not where the problem is in international sprinting versus Jamaican sprinters.
Nope wrote:
Nope, not even in the US, and he actually ran 10.9 in shorts and spikes, I could list at least four sports with much better potential athletes for T&F then the NBA that steal (arguably) talent from T&F.
4x4phreek wrote:
It's a pretty weak argument honestly, basically apocryphal, with the exceptional case here and there used to try to prove the point (in this instance it's De Grasse).
I've heard this almost exclusively from those attempting to rationalize the recent sudden Jamaican sprint rise over U.S. sprinters - as if the cream of USA sprinting - better than Gay, Gatlin, Bromell - are actually sprinting around baseball diamonds and up and down basketball courts. It's not the USA under-performing- this is just misdirection - it's Jamaican exceptionalism, as in outlier status. The numbers tell the story better than anything else could, and they don't lie.
The USA's answer to exceptionalism is not currently in other sports. Football is a great example to show this, as it's easily known who the fastest players are. Recent speedsters who played the game in college - Jeff Demps, Trindon Holliday - didn't impact on the international scene before retreating to football. In fact, they generally trailed Walter Dix in impact, who himself briefly made a mark in 2008 with Olympic Bronze in both the 100m and 200m.
The USA is just fine with the sprinters it has, and those coming through the pipeline. Talent isn't the problem in USA sprinting, and that's not where the problem is in international sprinting versus Jamaican sprinters.
Yep, good stuff, it's highly questionable/doubtful that any talent is being drained at all, I don't buy it.
Explains why Shelly Ann Fraser dominates the women's sprints at 5'0".
Trindon Holliday qualified for the World Championships in 2007. He would have needed to PR to win a medal (Asafa Powell 9.96) but with perfect peaking might have had a shot. He turned down his WC slot to concentrate on football.
Marquise Goodwin won USATF LJ with a 27+.
Jacoby Ford missed the NCAA record in the 60 by 0.01. He might have been able to not just make the US team but win World Indoors.
Ted Ginn and RJ3 had medal potential.
But these days, thanks mostly to Bolt, sprinting is cool. Don't say track, including distance, just sprinting. Within the last year Michael Norman's 7-time Southern California Section Championship football coach, stepped down as the football coach to concentrate on track. Marvin Bracy turned down football to concentrate on track and has an indoor silver. Chris Johnson compares himself to Bolt. You don't see and track guys comparing themselves to Larry Fitzgerald.
Yeah, as I said, Holiday generally trailed Walter Dix in performance, who himself didn't reach or sustain at the level of Gay/Gatlin, so we can't say USA sprinting is suffering against the Jamaicans because Holliday isn't running track. In fact, Holliday didn't advance past the semi-finals of the 2008 U.S. Olympic Trials.
Chris Johnson is another one of those guys that trailed Walter Dix (only this was in high school in Florida). On that basis alone, there's no reason to speculate that Johnson had it in him to be a world-leading sprinter for the U.S.
Jacoby Ford topped out at 10.21 and 21.08 in college, numbers that don't indicate he should be in the conversation in the context of what USA sprinting might be "missing".
Ginn never crossed a hurdle after high school, but Griffin is a great name. Still, this is about whether American sprinting is hurting because world-class - in fact, world-leading sprinters - are playing other American sports. The evidence just isn't there to support that.
Jacoby Ford ran 6.51 and 10.01 with a legal wind. One of the quickest people ever in the NFL.Regarding tall vs. short sprinters, Glen Mills (Bolt's coach) said this in New Studies in Athletics in 2009:
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.
Tall sprinters and short sprinters need to race differently, but both have been successful.
coach d wrote:
Jacoby Ford ran 6.51 and 10.01 with a legal wind. One of the quickest people ever in the NFL.
I stand corrected on Ford, who also ran 20.88 for 200m (from the IAAF web site). A 10.01 clearly shows Ford to be in the company of a Jeff Demps (10.01) and Trindon Holliday (10.00).
Also, that's a weird quote by Glen Mills, since he indicates shorter sprinters have an advantage at the start/first half of race, but lose it because they tighten up in the second half. That's just a broad generalization without respect to the skill of probably most shorter pro sprinters who've mastered running relaxed.
As well, he speaks as if taller runners don't face the disadvantage of tightening up in the second half of the race, as if it's something inherent in their physiology/psychology There's no basis for that.
You are not a sprinter, and, frankly, an anonymous poster on a distance board deciding he knows more than Mills (remember, Yohan Blake, 5'11") is the height of the ridiculous.
There have been tall sprinters for a long time, and people like Tommie Smith (6'3"), John Carlos (6'4"), and Francis Obikwelu (6'5") are among the fastest ever in terms of max velocity. But, to maximize your acceleration potential in the first 10 meters requires about 450 pound squat capability, and most tall sprinters have a strength deficit. They have long levers which means high sprint speed, but if they are not strong enough, they can't get up to speed fast enough so they never quite catch up, which is what happened to Obikwelu against Gatlin in 2004.
It's not really that shorter sprinters have so much of an advantage but tall sprinters have a disadvantage due to the strength deficit. But shorter sprinters have shorter levers, which means lower top speed, and to get close to the max velocity of a taller sprinter, shorter sprinters have to extend their legs for the whole race. The problem is that keeping extension after 70-80 meters comes down to fighting lack of speed endurance and energy at the end of the race, and that is why John Smith's method of managing energy flow works for shorter sprinters especially (Mo Greene, Ato, Carmelita Jeter, all short).
So, Bolt's advantage really is not the high top speed in the second half of the race, it's because he doesn't lose much in the first half of the race. In the 2009 WR, he had the lead at 20 meters
There are guys who run really really fast. Some of them are tall. Some are not as tall.
You're welcome.
coach d wrote:
You are not a sprinter, and, frankly, an anonymous poster on a distance board deciding he knows more than Mills (remember, Yohan Blake, 5'11") is the height of the ridiculous.
I'm no more or less anonymous than you are, so that's an unnecessary mention. Further, "anonymity" has no place in evaluating that quote you placed there - just common sense (which itself has nothing to so with asserting someone "knows more than" a seasoned coach).
That said, I stated that the quote was "weird" - and I stand by it. The quote contains a couple ridiculous statements. Did you not read the following?
However, most of them tend to tighten up in the maximum velocity phase or once they feel the presence of a taller sprinter. (emphasis mine)[/quote
What the hell does the height of a sprinter whose presence is being felt have to do with the tightening up of a shorter runner? Absolutely nothing. If a sprinter is going to tighten up it has nothing to do with the height of the runner next to him. He'd tighten up either way - against short or tall. This is a weird thing for a coach to say.
To go on to indicate after that about shorter sprinters that "...a lot of that is lost, especially for the short sprinters, in the psychological preparation that tends to affect them in the competition itself " - nonsense. He plainly says that shorter sprinters are less psychologically prepared, which causes them to lose. He clearly stated psychological - not physiological. Complete nonsense no matter who that comes from. What an insult to the all of the shorter runners who've mastered the technique of running relaxed and maintaining race plans through the entire race.
Your dissertation that followed after doesn't change the content of that quote. You should be responding to what's actually in the quote, not what you want to extrapolate from it, and what you want to append to it, while circumventing the obvious criticisms of what Mills stated. What you added doesn't change what was said.
It doesn't matter that his name is "Glen Mills", or that you yourself have "coach d" as your registered name - what's said still needs to make sense. Which brings me to this:
[quote]As well, he speaks as if taller runners don't face the disadvantage of tightening up in the second half of the race, as if it's something inherent in their physiology/psychology There's no basis for that.
Just to be clear, are you challenging this statement?
coach d wrote:
You are not a sprinter, and, frankly, an anonymous poster on a distance board deciding he knows more than Mills (remember, Yohan Blake, 5'11") is the height of the ridiculous.
I'm no more or less anonymous than you are, so that's an unnecessary mention. Further, "anonymity" has no place in evaluating that quote you placed there - just common sense (which itself has nothing to so with asserting someone "knows more than" a seasoned coach).
That said, I stated that the quote was "weird" - and I stand by it. The quote contains a couple ridiculous statements. Did you not read the following?
However, most of them tend to tighten up in the maximum velocity phase or once they feel the presence of a taller sprinter. (emphasis mine)
What the hell does the height of a sprinter whose presence is being felt have to do with the tightening up of a shorter runner? Absolutely nothing. If a sprinter is going to tighten up it has nothing to do with the height of the runner next to him. He'd tighten up either way - against short or tall. This is a weird thing for a coach to say.
To go on to indicate after that about shorter sprinters that "...a lot of that is lost, especially for the short sprinters, in the psychological preparation that tends to affect them in the competition itself " - nonsense. He plainly says that shorter sprinters are less psychologically prepared, which causes them to lose. He clearly stated psychological - not physiological. Complete nonsense no matter who that comes from. What an insult to the all of the shorter runners who've mastered the technique of running relaxed and maintaining race plans through the entire race.
Your dissertation that followed after doesn't change the content of that quote. You should be responding to what's actually in the quote, not what you want to extrapolate from it, and what you want to append to it, while circumventing the obvious criticisms of what Mills stated. What you added doesn't change what was said.
It doesn't matter that his name is "Glen Mills", or that you yourself have "coach d" as your registered name - what's said still needs to make sense. Which brings me to this:
As well, he speaks as if taller runners don't face the disadvantage of tightening up in the second half of the race, as if it's something inherent in their physiology/psychology There's no basis for that.
Just to be clear, are you challenging this statement?