Tons of those guys were/are as fast or faster than faster than Lewis.
Witherspoon was 6’5”, he wasn’t amazing.
The 100m is a composite. Taller guys (Bolt, Obikwelu, Lemaitre, Lewis, etc) have a lower first half ceiling, and shorter guys (Greene, BJ, CC, etc) have a lower second-half ceiling.
The most important thing in the use of PED’s is to compensate for deficiencies—tall guys in the first half, shorter guys in the 2nd half. The key is to look for athletes with an exceptional half—eg Bolt in the 2nd, BJ in the 1st—and supplement accordingly. It’s a system as old as time.
The vogue now has been to find those intrinsically better in the 2nd half, but only because guys except CC have forgotten how to accelerate well. The fashion before that was BJ, Mullings, Greene, Frater, etc who had a great first half, then the 2nd was bumped. BJ’s Seoul 2nd half was great; Greene’s was always great; Frater used to run long 2nd’s on WR relays with the best ever running other legs!
There is no intrinsic 100m benefit from height. Which direction supps better is a function of both supps and enforcement environment.
The best seems to be the mid-range guys like Gatlin, Bailey, etc maybe up to Powell and now Thompson, who use different amounts of broader-spectrum tools.
Each era is different. Great height is no advantage. 6’5” or 6’6” is imo the max profitable, and maybe 5’7” or 5’8” the min. Between those 2 values, you play. The he better you are at the game, and the more competitive advantages you have, the better you end up. Bolt had the biggest competitive advantage in the history of sprinting, all the way to the top, which is the only reason he has ended up with the fastest clocking.
Basically agree, but even you are overemphasizing height with finishing abilities. I'd agree there's overlap, like a Venn diagram with height and "2nd half" proficiency in sprinters. But it's not a universal truth, and you could get a guy under 6' to finish with the best of them.
To make a long story short (pun) -since people mostly ignore anyway-, I'd argue that Shacarri Richardson is an example of a inversion of the height claim. She's a bad starter and a stronger finisher, and she's quite short, even for females. I know this inversion can happen because that's how I was as a sprinter, too, though not nearly at the elite level (in gender contexts, anyway) as a Richardson.
Another good (and should be obvious) example:
Tyson Gay is 5'11 and his peak finishing ability was probably closer in quality to Bolts than Gays starting ability was to abolt. In essence, Gay was typically out accelerated by Bolt, rather than Bolt simply running away from him. Doesn't Gay have the fastest 10m split, outside of Bolt, ever recorded?? So he was a male under 6' and he was practically inverting Bolt in real time. Though 5'11 isn't exactly short...I still argue it's proof against the claims made here about sprinter height.
Yes, agree, although the “general rule” holds.
But that is why I mentioned Frater on 2nd, and Greene’s top end. Let’s also not forget ADG and his 100m 2nd half, as well as his fantastic 200m PB.
On the other side of the scale, you have Powell, who was “tall” but could start with the best of them. His 60m PB isn’t indicative of his best 60m, and his first 25m was absolutely superb, including his textbook block clearance.
So yes, agreed.
btw anybody who has gone sub-9.8 has run a blazing first 60m, probably 6.30-6.37.
Bolt has been THE BEST to date not because of 9.58, or goofed and negative-leaned 9.69, but because he LITERALLY jogged the second half in a 9.8x quarter. In fact, watch his Berlin semi: 9.89, JOGGED THE SECOND HALF😮. Jogged 9.8’s are the single most insane 100m performances I have ever seen, and THAT is the thing that nobody else has come close to replicating.
None of you know how stratospheric a 9.8 is. BJ began a new era, but Bolt was the one who did it EASILY. Blake came close, but…
Won’t the Enhanced Games answer this question? They will be offering $1M (plus a 6 figure salary) to anyone who breaks the 100M WR. I would imagine that’s enough to get some 10.0 guys to try it.
It takes a lot more than drugs to run 9.58. Tim Montgomery went from a legal low 9.9 runner to a mid 9.7 runner off a steroid regimen - that is most likely as far as anyone will be able to go.
No, that's just ignorance. The outliers in the 100m are those men who can attain 12 meters per second and women who can attain 11 meters per second. And this is a genetic trait that can't be attained by doping.
When they perfect their start and their speed endurance, they become true world class sprinters.
You and others like you are the real doping problem but you will never understand why.
I don't use this phrase lightly - that's an absolutely r-tarded take.
Because we all know very well the "issues" collectively the men under 9.80 have had historically with respect to doping - either serving bans or being implicated in it. 4 of the top 5 men on the all-time list have served suspension time alone - with the one guy that hasn't being the guy at the top of the list by an astronomical 0.11 seconds - Usain Bolt.
Gay - 12 months, Testosterone/DHEA
Blake - gets off on a technicality authorized by the Jamaican "Anti-Doping" Commission, Methylhexanamine
Powell - 18 months, Oxilofrine
Gatlin - banned twice in his career, first time amphetamines, second time Testosterone/DHEA.
"Myself and others are the real doping problem?" Hahahaha - that one made me literally laugh out laugh. Good one.
Repeat the olimpic final lineup in Hernando Siles Stadium at La Paz (Bolivia) 3 weeks after a world major. At 3637 (11.932 ft) above sea level. If they catch a good legal tailwind (+1,8) we can see sub 9.70's and probably a sub 9.60.
For example, Letsile Tebogo ran 9.91 (WJR) in Cali (Colombia) two years ago. If you look the video, in the final 20 meters he was preserving himself to probably, a sub 9.84. And Cali is not too high in altitude.
The calculator says the two 9.79s in Paris would probably come out to around a 9.69 with a perfect +2 wind in that location. At least by the numbers as is.
By comparison, Bolts Berlin run would probably end up a 9.48 in LA Paz with a +1.8, and even dip lower to 9.47 with the full +2.0.
For further comparison, Tyson Gays 9.71 in Berlin would become a 9.60 flat in LA Paz with the full +2.0 wind, and Blake's 9.69 in Lusanne would become a 9.55 with a perfect +2.0 wind in LA Paz.
Blake's Lusanne 9.69 is the closest to Bolt-like anyone ever really got; and it's worth a "basic" 9.70. But I don't think Blake broke a 9.80 in basic ever again, so I've always found that Lusanne result to be....I dunno. I'm sure it's legit in its metrics....I just don't think it justifies putting him as truly #2 behind Bolt in the "all time" brute numbers 100m time result list.
Gay, on the other hand, ran more consistently for a bit longer, and he has his 9.71 in Berlin (worth a 9.75 in basic) as well as a couple more converted sub 9.8s in basic that peak with his 9.78 in London (worth another 9.75 due to negative wind). To me, he's the legit second best in terms of raw times and the environments they ran in.
And all these guys now pale in comparison to to the Bolt/Gay/Blake/Powell era. It's really not even close.
So I know that the scoring tables aren't perfect - but they aren't bad.
9.58 - the best track record in the sport according to the tables, clocks in at a whopping 1355 points. To put this in context...
That's an 800m WR of 1.39.27
A 1500m WR of 3.22.44
Think Jakob might break the legendary 3000m record of Komen in Silesia with a mark for the ages? Well to match Bolts 100m record he'd need to go a casual 7.12.25.
To put in context against the women, well the current record is the PED fuelled, +4.5 meter per second wind aided 10.49 from Flo Jo but 10.31 is the equivilent.
The record of Bolt is so absurd it defies description. It's not just that it's better - it's just so much of an outlier vs every other event we have it's simply not plausible. Can you imagine if Sedjati or Wanyoni ripped off a 1.39 low? Jakob went out in 1.48.0 in Lausanne, hit 1200 in 2.42 and closed out in a 40 point? You simply can't right. Think about how good you believe the other track WR's are - well they are pale in comparison to his 100 (and 200 but the 100 is marginally better).
The way this record can be broken is if you already have a sprinting super talent (like Bolt naturally was), with similar physiology (right at 6'4 or taller) and you (I really hate saying this but I sadly believe it), sophisticatedly dope them with impunity. Because you need to have a candidate that can go 9.85'ish clean but then really max out the benefits of a smart doping regime that can get you those 3 tenths of a second maximum benefit we tend to see with the pure anaerobic power events.
How long will it last? I truly believe I might never live to see this broken unless stuff gets really out of hand. What evidence do we have it could be? Seriously?
Nah, the 400mh, 3km, and marathon are better running records. What happened is the blood passport lacked a lot of androgen-type drugs until about 2014/2015 after which 9.76 became the upper limit for the current generation of sprinters. In about 5 years a new type of drug with better spikes will take 9.75 down to 9.64 them someone will get a perfect tailwind on a great track and the record will go. Most of the field records are better but they are dirtier!
It's been mentioned in this thread, but it hasn't been really discussed. Blake and Lyles are 5'11". Gatlin is 6'1". Usain Bolt is 6'5". Everything else being equal, height is a factor in the 100m. You don't see many world class sprinters under 5'10". I'm sure they exist, but most world class sprinters have been closer to 6' or taller. Carl Lewis is 6'2".
The fastest 60m every recorded was in the 100m semi-finals in Tokyo when Su Bingtian ran 6.29. Su is 5'8". Bolt's top speed is faster than Bingtian's. Another outlier is Christian Coleman at 5'9", but they are the exceptions to the rule.
Height obviously isn't the only reason Bolt's record is so impressive, but it is a factor. If you watch his races, Bolt would begin to pull away between 50 and 70 meters. He could run faster from 50 to 100m than anyone in the world at the time.
Tons of those guys were/are as fast or faster than faster than Lewis.
Witherspoon was 6’5”, he wasn’t amazing.
The 100m is a composite. Taller guys (Bolt, Obikwelu, Lemaitre, Lewis, etc) have a lower first half ceiling, and shorter guys (Greene, BJ, CC, etc) have a lower second-half ceiling.
The most important thing in the use of PED’s is to compensate for deficiencies—tall guys in the first half, shorter guys in the 2nd half. The key is to look for athletes with an exceptional half—eg Bolt in the 2nd, BJ in the 1st—and supplement accordingly. It’s a system as old as time.
The vogue now has been to find those intrinsically better in the 2nd half, but only because guys except CC have forgotten how to accelerate well. The fashion before that was BJ, Mullings, Greene, Frater, etc who had a great first half, then the 2nd was bumped. BJ’s Seoul 2nd half was great; Greene’s was always great; Frater used to run long 2nd’s on WR relays with the best ever running other legs!
There is no intrinsic 100m benefit from height. Which direction supps better is a function of both supps and enforcement environment.
The best seems to be the mid-range guys like Gatlin, Bailey, etc maybe up to Powell and now Thompson, who use different amounts of broader-spectrum tools.
Each era is different. Great height is no advantage. 6’5” or 6’6” is imo the max profitable, and maybe 5’7” or 5’8” the min. Between those 2 values, you play. The he better you are at the game, and the more competitive advantages you have, the better you end up. Bolt had the biggest competitive advantage in the history of sprinting, all the way to the top, which is the only reason he has ended up with the fastest clocking.
"There is no intrinsic 100m benefit from height. Which direction supps better is a function of both supps and enforcement environment.
Well, kinda surprised you would say this. A longer level = more torque that would influence angular velocity.
Tyson gay ran 9.69 later that year, Bolt ran 9.63 in 2012 and Yohan Blake ran 9.69 in 2012 but in the last 10 years the closest anyone has come is Gatlin's 9.74 from 2015.
So no one is within .16 of the record the last decade.
Noah Lyles' PB 9.79 is the exact same amount of time from 10.00 as it is from Bolt's record.
So thoughts? How long do you think this thing lasts?
It has always made perfect sense to me that one human being could be so much faster than all of his other competitors including those 15 years down the road. Moreso when we consider some of them were caught using illegal substances and he managed to do it clean.
Dude, no one is breaking that record. No one. Not now. Not ever. I’ll come back and bump this thread once a year until I’m dead and the record will still stand.
Wait till they come up with shoes for the sprints. Bekele’s seemingly unbreakable records were at 15 years before being quickly set aside within the first year of cheat shoes. Same with Rupp’s 10000m record. 15 of the top 20 times ever for women’s 10000m were ran in the last 4 years. It’s only a matter of time and technology before legends like Bolt are rendered obsolete like the Bekeles, Gebs, and Tergats of yesteryear. And I don’t think sprint legends are going to let it slide like the distance runners.
Shoe technology that only works for the WR holder?
If you are following the logic Bolt WR is rated 1358.
KB record was a mere 1298. JC is rated 1306.
The current crop of sprinters are running 100M at 1291.
This crop of 100M sprinters are not even at KB level and therefore unlikely to reach Usain's eyewatering, jaw dropping 100M sprinting 1358 level.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
So I know that the scoring tables aren't perfect - but they aren't bad.
9.58 - the best track record in the sport according to the tables, clocks in at a whopping 1355 points. To put this in context...
How long will it last? I truly believe I might never live to see this broken unless stuff gets really out of hand. What evidence do we have it could be? Seriously?
Nah, the 400mh, 3km, and marathon are better running records.
The marathon record by the mercurial KK is rated 1322. and no marathoner is close.
the 400MH is rated 1341 close but not better.
the 3000M is a mere 1299.
For the 3000M JI is close at 1288 last year, but that was still 3S away.
Either you are not following the logic or you have a different yard stick.
Bolt's record is looking like it is here to stay.
Since the current sprinters are rated at 1291.
This post was edited 59 seconds after it was posted.
So I know that the scoring tables aren't perfect - but they aren't bad.
9.58 - the best track record in the sport according to the tables, clocks in at a whopping 1355 points. To put this in context...
That's an 800m WR of 1.39.27
A 1500m WR of 3.22.44
Think Jakob might break the legendary 3000m record of Komen in Silesia with a mark for the ages? Well to match Bolts 100m record he'd need to go a casual 7.12.25.
To put in context against the women, well the current record is the PED fuelled, +4.5 meter per second wind aided 10.49 from Flo Jo but 10.31 is the equivilent.
The record of Bolt is so absurd it defies description. It's not just that it's better - it's just so much of an outlier vs every other event we have it's simply not plausible. Can you imagine if Sedjati or Wanyoni ripped off a 1.39 low? Jakob went out in 1.48.0 in Lausanne, hit 1200 in 2.42 and closed out in a 40 point? You simply can't right. Think about how good you believe the other track WR's are - well they are pale in comparison to his 100 (and 200 but the 100 is marginally better).
The way this record can be broken is if you already have a sprinting super talent (like Bolt naturally was), with similar physiology (right at 6'4 or taller) and you (I really hate saying this but I sadly believe it), sophisticatedly dope them with impunity. Because you need to have a candidate that can go 9.85'ish clean but then really max out the benefits of a smart doping regime that can get you those 3 tenths of a second maximum benefit we tend to see with the pure anaerobic power events.
How long will it last? I truly believe I might never live to see this broken unless stuff gets really out of hand. What evidence do we have it could be? Seriously?
Well said. You backed up my gut feeling with some numbers.
The only wild card you bring up is doping. If some new highly effective drug is invented, then might be possible. But that’s just a hypothetical.
genetic doping is the only real wild card I can think of that could get it done
As soon as someone puts up an insane mark, they get that stupid moniker. Oh, they were great as a junior? Meaningless! Everyone matures at different rates.
THERE IS NO UBERMENSCH.
Not Bolt, not Zelezny, not FloJo, not Kratochvilova, not JJK, not El-G, not Sedikh, not Sotomayor, not Lewis, not Edwards.
Ok, maybe Edwards. LOL WTF is up with that TJ record, on the hard runway, by a small wiry guy?
No, not Edwards. Not Beamon. NOBODY.
At the top of everything, everybody is very close to everybody else. When close, anything can, and does, happen. Blake missing the start, Smith’s altitude, Pedroso’s call, FloJo’s wind, Lewis’s LJ wind, Beamon’s altitude…. It all goes both ways, and the margin between a foul and a WR is tiny, often up to measurement or judgment error, or the range of “allowable” conditions.
What are the longest-standing records? Do you believe that the women who hold the records for SP and DT, and the men for HT, had such a thing as “generational talent”?
Uhhh, okay - but in terms of inherent physical "gifts" you agree that some athletes are born with better ones than others right?
Because the opposite would be that all humans are born with the exact same physiology etc etc and then the athlete that becomes the best is the one that trains/manages lifestyle the best? I'm pretty sure Usain Bolt was born with physical gifts or "talents" that would pertain to him have a better ceiling for sprinting than say, you or I right?
Or you don't think that's the case and we were just a needle and some magic cream away from 9.58 and a handful of Olympic golds. I'm not sure about that.
Maybe you are upset the word "talent" is being used - that's fair. How about replacing it with "physiology" instead. Because we know that there is a spectrum of this with respect to candidacy for even running 10.0 seconds in the 100m. A human born with the genetics to grow to 6'4 that has a predominantly fast twitch muscle fibers, flat muscular feet with long a achilles simply has a higher ceiling to run 100m than a human born with the genetics to not grow over 5'10 with predominantly slow twitch muscle fibers etc etc etc.
So how about we say "generational physiology" instead. Because if we pool all humans together and were able to test for all of the physical traits that pertained best to sprinting, we could simply narrow that down to whatever number we wanted to. Now let's assume that Usain Bolt at his peak ages was one of the top 8-10 on the planet - this is not incomprehensible because someone has to be. Now let's assume that whatever the hell he was taking (even everyone else was doing something too) just coincidentally and by chance, worked so much better for his unique physiology than anyone else's. Is this not plausible?
I'm not hung up on basic as the "real" mark or whatever, it's just the easiest way to compare. If this is correct, no one is within 0.18 of Bolt's basic best from 15 years ago besides Coleman. Coleman and Yohan are the only active sprinters to have gone below 9.80 basic.
I'm not hung up on basic as the "real" mark or whatever, it's just the easiest way to compare. If this is correct, no one is within 0.18 of Bolt's basic best from 15 years ago besides Coleman. Coleman and Yohan are the only active sprinters to have gone below 9.80 basic.
What do you mean by gone below 9.80 basic? You are either below 9.8 or you are not, no?
What do you mean by gone below 9.80 basic? You are either below 9.8 or you are not, no?
"Basic" refers to wind and altitude corrections - taking the performance and converting the time to what it would be at 0.0 mps wind and at sea level. Jonas Mureika has a very popular online calculator which does the physics for that conversion.
Just as an example, both Tyson Gay and Yohan Blake have run 9.69. But Tyson ran his 9.69 with the max legal tailwind, while Yohan ran into a very slight headwind. Yohan's performance is superior, and that's easy to understand even without the calculator.
The conversion isn't perfect - it doesn't take into account heat, a wet track, etc., not to mention the varying wind readings you can get during the same run. But it's better than nothing as a way of comparing runs during different races.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.