What makes Bolt better then? It's not like he's the only doper. Everyone under 9.8 dopes according to you. Is he on infinitely better dope than everyone else?
What makes Bolt better then? It's not like he's the only doper. Everyone under 9.8 dopes according to you. Is he on infinitely better dope than everyone else?
High Jumping
It's just like anything else, different physical traits do make a difference. Bolt is not a great starter, he is adequate. The great starters are the shorter sprinters.
Deacon wrote:
...
Theres a reason why sports cars have wheels with such large diameters. A 20" wheel covers more ground in one revolution than a 16" wheel. So it doesnt actually NEED to spin as fast to actually get from point A to point B. But if it can....thats even better...
You seem a knowledgeable chap so I am not trying to get on your case overall.
That said, this is a really bad analogy. I could just as easily say that there is a reason why race cars have a diameter of 20" rather than 40". It is because you need to be sufficiently small...
It is not entirely unreasonable to think that there may be some ideal height for sprinting. To arbitrarily say that being 6' 5" provides an advantage over being 5' 10" is just that, arbitrary and completely devoid of logical or scientific underpinnings.
If Bolt is a freak of nature it's an extraordinary coincidence that he comes from Jamaica. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
Apostate wrote:
If Bolt is a freak of nature it's an extraordinary coincidence that he comes from Jamaica. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
No it is not surprising that Bolt should come from Jamaica. Nor is it surprising that the man who may one day break Michael Johnson's 400M record - Kirani James - comes from a tiny little dot in the Caribbean called Grenada with a population that is just barely over 100,000.
In Jamaica's case the country has a very long tradition of successful sprinters going back several decades: Arthur Wint, Herb Mckenley, Don Quarrie(the first sprinter to hold both 100m/200m records simultaneously)and Merlene Ottey to name just a few. Sprinting is probably only a shade behind soccer down there. And this is true for most of the islands in the Caribbean that are even several times smaller than Jamaica and have produced many, many successful sprinters - Ato Boldon, Richard Thompson, Ryan Braithwaite and many, many more.
It was almost inevitable that a sprinter of Usain Bolt's caliber would emerge and that he would come from the Caribbean with Jamaica as the most probable location.
WhyWhy wrote:
No it is not surprising that Bolt should come from Jamaica. Nor is it surprising that the man who may one day break Michael Johnson's 400M record - Kirani James - comes from a tiny little dot in the Caribbean called Grenada with a population that is just barely over 100,000.
In Jamaica's case the country has a very long tradition of successful sprinters going back several decades: Arthur Wint, Herb Mckenley, Don Quarrie(the first sprinter to hold both 100m/200m records simultaneously)and Merlene Ottey to name just a few. Sprinting is probably only a shade behind soccer down there. And this is true for most of the islands in the Caribbean that are even several times smaller than Jamaica and have produced many, many successful sprinters - Ato Boldon, Richard Thompson, Ryan Braithwaite and many, many more.
It was almost inevitable that a sprinter of Usain Bolt's caliber would emerge and that he would come from the Caribbean with Jamaica as the most probable location.
And how could I forget the legendary Hasely Crawford also from Trinidad - 1976 Montreal Olympic 100M Gold medal winner. Yes the Caribbean has been churning winners out for some time now and will continue to do so as top athletes in the US who could be world beaters look to other sports.
Whaaat? wrote:
Old Runner wrote:The advantage Bolt has is that his turnover is every bit as good as the shorter guys, and full stride dynamics are unusual.
No, watch the video I posted above. His turnover is much slower than Tyson Gay's but you are right about his stride length.
True but watch the 100m from last week when Bolt beat out Rodgers with a 9.85 win. At the end their turnover is identical. Bolt has unusual turnover for a man his size size
You could have done, but you turned your back on a promising athletics career to chop down trees and inspire "Monty Python" sketches.
Old Runner wrote:
Whaaat? wrote:No, watch the video I posted above. His turnover is much slower than Tyson Gay's but you are right about his stride length.
True but watch the 100m from last week when Bolt beat out Rodgers with a 9.85 win. At the end their turnover is identical. Bolt has unusual turnover for a man his size size
Oh, without a doubt! His turnover is insane when you factor in the height and stride length. It may look slower than a short sprinters but when you multiply steps by stride length, he's covering more ground faster than anyone out there.
Raptured wrote:
What makes Bolt better then? It's not like he's the only doper. Everyone under 9.8 dopes according to you. Is he on infinitely better dope than everyone else?
No, the dope is the same.
He isn't infinitely better.
Powell went 9.72 with basically no wind. Blake went 9.69 with no wind, and had he been allowed to continue doping as long as Bolt, would have equalled that 9.58 this year.
Johnson went 9.79 in 1988 on a mushy track, without absolutely full fitness. He would have gone at least low-9.6x today. 9.79 was only the second step after 9.83, they were planning to lower the WR incrementally. There were other steps to come, like Bubka. There is a good chance that Johnson would be at 9.58 today also.
Gay, one year after injury, was going 9.75. It is not unreasonable to think that he would have gone 9.6x-mid, at least, this year with good conditions.
Also, assuming Bailey, Surin, and Fredericks were clean (yes, a big assumption), each of them would have gone 9.6x on the juice, if not 9.58
Bolt is not infinitely better in the 100, he's the only one who has gotten away with it to the level where, and at a point in track history when, 9.58 was achievable.
That "unaided" 9.92 was actually aided by a maximum legal wind reading of +2.0, and was not even a sub-10 basic.
That 6'3" white guy is no faster than the other best white guys before him, who have been shorter than him--he just got lucky with a huge wind.
And you know how I feel about maximal wind readings--there is a decent chance that it was more than +2.0
Plus, the fact that he did it with max tailwind is telling--maybe because he is bigger he is affected more by aerodynamic drag than are smaller runners, and benefits more than they do from a tailwind, and is affected more by a headwind than they do.
Plus, there are enough 6'5" guys that if they were actually intrinsically faster in the 100m, they would be selected into that event, unless they were one of the tiny handful of guys who ends up in a major league sport.
Look at swimming. Height can definitely be an advantage, and elite swim sprinters are HUGE compared to elite track sprinters.
It's amazing, isn't it? Even though you would think that they would all be selected into basketball, football, volleyball, etc. And don't argue black/white with me--the best 100m whites are only .1 behind the best 100m blacks, and Cullen Jones is no 100m track WR-holder.
Whaaat? wrote:
I've said this before and here it is again.
Watch the video and look at Bolt's relatively slow turnover, compared to Tyson Gay's Sonic the Hedgehog impersonation. Tell me, why did slower turnover win the race?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nbjhpcZ9_gGeezer, it's not just Bolt's height but that sure factors in nicely. Sorta like basketball. You don't have to be tall to be good, but it sure helps.
Once again you are assuming that all other things are equal, which they are not.
Sprinting is not exactly scalable. There are some benefits and some drawbacks of being taller. What the exact balance is in any particular case, is not perfectly known--but what is impermissible is to exclude the drawbacks from the discussion.
It is useless to point to his 9.58 or his goofed-and-negative-leaned 9.69 as evidence that the balance favors height, because you are conveniently ignoring other possible factors, such as doping. His times alone are NOT evidence that support your argument.
Deacon: "I know plenty of athlets on drugs in every event in track but I dont get the same chubby from pretending to out them like you do....."
Oh, really? If you KNOW, then why don't you report them, along with the evidence that you have?
There are only 2 options:
1) you are lying
2) you are a POS and part of the problem.
I suspect you don't "know" at all, you merely look at evidence like I do, and reach a conclusion.
I personally don't care if you don't have the courage of your convictions and/or the time and wherewithal to post what you think and believe--I do. Why? Because it's important enough to me to do so.
Every time one of these dopers disappears from competition, it's a good thing in my eyes. You are doing nothing to further the dialogue, keep the issue alive, or draw attention to the problem--and without some keeping those concerns alive, nobody will be compelled to do anything, and things would continue on as normal, and hardworking, clean athletes would continue to get the shaft, and families and friends and coaches who devote their entire lives to helping a clean athlete realize their dreams will continue to be disappointed.
If you KNOW something, you should tell it to those who matter, in the accepted way.
If not, then nobody will give you any points for not saying what you think and believe, except for those who benefit from cheating.
So you trained with him/saw him till 2006? Or 2007? Do you know anything about Powell? (Admittedly different club and training group)
That means his Junior WRs are legit at least.
The Houston muscle fire faster drug sounds interesting. Who trains there?
What does anyone think Ben Johnson's clean limits were? I'll admit his start puzzles me and always has - is it just the result of immense strength?
Whaaat? wrote:
...It may look slower than a short sprinters but when you multiply steps by stride length, he's covering more ground faster than anyone out there.
You mean that he runs faster than everyone else? Who'da thunk it?
I actually agree with this lol. Height really has nothing to do with how fast you, just affects HOW you run.
Getting sick of this.
Doesn't anyone here understand of believe in physics?
If you're 10% taller than your otherwie identical twin (optimal sprinter build), you'll be 33.1% heavier.
Your power will be 33.1% greater.
Your power to weight ratio will be identical.
Your frontal surface area however will be 21% greater.
Your air drag at 45kph will be 21% greater. And you have 33% to play with. So you've got some left there.
Other losses are poportionate to weight. So the air drag is where a taller (optimally proportioned and built) sprinter wins.
In sprinting, air drag is a huge factor. Do the research.
There are not many 6'5" runners, period, because they're told before they're grown that they'll be too slow to run, and better be friends with one ball or another. See Bolt, he was kept away from the 100m for a long time also.
When I run with team mates on the track, whom I know to be in equal shape to me (I'm 6'5"), I always do better into a steady head wind, where the air drag is greater than usual. My weight/power/strength pushes through more easily.
Tell you something else. On a road bike, My extra height is NOT an advantage. Because it's all in the legs, so my seat is way higher. I gain more air drag than my weight can compensate for. I end up being noticably slugging over 35-40pkh. On light uphills, my power to weight shines through again, but nothing to do with height. Although the long femurs help.
If you take a skinny fast dude, let's say Lemaitre, and could scale him to a skinny Dolf Lungren (+10% height, +33% weight), he'd be crazy fast. But such a tall white dude, will be even be accepted socially on a sprint team? That needs a special trainer, and a special athlete. Lemaitre became a sprinter against all odd, later in his youth. And look what happened. It's not because he's caucasian or skinny, but just a rare occurance of a skinny white dude giving it a go, and being supported.
Bolt is a tall Jamaican who barely got support to dip into the 100m game when he was already really special on the longer sprints.
I'll restate. Bolt's not clean, but his speed difference over other unique specimen such as Tyson Gay can be explained by height. It's helps only a bit, but when you're someone else's equal otherwise, you always want this last factor to be in your favor.
Picture a scales up runner by 100%. Yes, 12 ft tall.
Stats : 1500lb. Same power to weight as Tyson Gay. 8x heavier, but only 4x the air drag.
This Gay win over his 2x taller King Kong brother? Don't get your mind tangled up in the ccomplex biodynamics of the first slow strides, how long the drive phase with take, stride length, etc. Bigger well proportioned dude (all else being equal) will be quicker, no context.
WhyWhy wrote:
No it is not surprising that Bolt should come from Jamaica. Nor is it surprising that the man who may one day break Michael Johnson's 400M record - Kirani James - comes from a tiny little dot in the Caribbean called Grenada with a population that is just barely over 100,000.
In Jamaica's case the country has a very long tradition of successful sprinters going back several decades: Arthur Wint, Herb Mckenley, Don Quarrie(the first sprinter to hold both 100m/200m records simultaneously)and Merlene Ottey to name just a few. Sprinting is probably only a shade behind soccer down there. And this is true for most of the islands in the Caribbean that are even several times smaller than Jamaica and have produced many, many successful sprinters - Ato Boldon, Richard Thompson, Ryan Braithwaite and many, many more.
It was almost inevitable that a sprinter of Usain Bolt's caliber would emerge and that he would come from the Caribbean with Jamaica as the most probable location.
Post of the day. I see so many ridiculous posts on here from people who know nothing about the history of track and field as if Jamaican track and field emerged at the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
Dude, I have to agree with SG here. As a planet, we have been taking sprinting very seriously now for over 30 years. Natural selection is key, the stats don't lie.
Here in Europe, a lot of the talent gets sucked up by soccer. Some of the best players are under 5" 8. Why? The ability to accelerate very quickly over 20 - 30 metres is lethal. I have NEVER in my life seen a 6 " 5 player with that sort of pace. It's a hindrance to speed being that tall, not a blessing.