Sprint Guys Why Was the Usain Bolt 200 Final So Slow???

comeonSon wrote:

wejo wrote:

Bolt ran 19.78 in both the semis and final. In the semis (-.3 wind) it wasn't all out. In the finals, Bolt was going for it saying he wanted the WR. (-.5 wind).

So was it slow because a) the track was wet b) Bolt was tired from 19.78 the day before or c) he tried to hard instead of relaxing

*too* hard. Come on, son. Them grammar rules ain't that hard.

What took you so long? I was afraid he was going to get away with that.... guessing you were busy correcting facebook posts. *or is that soo. I'm sure you'll let me know

wejo wrote:

Bolt ran 19.78 in both the semis and final. In the semis (-.3 wind) it wasn't all out. In the finals, Bolt was going for it saying he wanted the WR. (-.5 wind).

So was it slow because a) the track was wet b) Bolt was tired from 19.78 the day before or c) he tried to hard instead of relaxing

EVERY runner in the 200 meter final ran slow except for Bolt clocking 19.78 in both semis and final.

Here is what bolt and de grasse had to say.

BOLT:

I ran hard around the turn. On the straight, my body didn’t respond,” Bolt said of the race. “I’m getting old."

DE GRASSE:

I’m really happy with two medals, but my race today could have been better. I couldn’t really tell what happened,” De Grasse said. “I came off the bend and tried to do something, tried to go, but maybe I used up too much energy in the semi-final yesterday.

the answerman wrote:

All the Testosterone at the stadium was used up in the 'Womens' 800.

Wambui looks like a man as well. Her Adam's apple is bigger than mine.

wejo wrote:

Bolt ran 19.78 in both the semis and final. In the semis (-.3 wind) it wasn't all out. In the finals, Bolt was going for it saying he wanted the WR. (-.5 wind).

So was it slow because a) the track was wet b) Bolt was tired from 19.78 the day before or c) he tried to hard instead of relaxing

D) The Brazilan officials erased the start line and painted a new line a few meters back OR they erased the finish line and repainted it a few meters further down the track.

They maybe didnt want the would be 200 meter suburb performances in this race to be the spot light of these games for one reason or another

The answer is d) wrote:

wejo wrote:

Bolt ran 19.78 in both the semis and final. In the semis (-.3 wind) it wasn't all out. In the finals, Bolt was going for it saying he wanted the WR. (-.5 wind).

So was it slow because a) the track was wet b) Bolt was tired from 19.78 the day before or c) he tried to hard instead of relaxing

D) The Brazilan officials erased the start line and painted a new line a few meters back OR they erased the finish line and repainted it a few meters further down the track.

They maybe didnt want the would be 200 meter suburb performances in this race to be the spot light of these games for one reason or another

Someone get out there and measure the track again or we'll never know for sure.

You do realise that the 200m start line on lane 1 is also the beggining of the turn/curve/curb (however you like to refer to it) right? Even a meter back would be easy to spot.

Or did they change the track surface during the night and built a 405 meter track?

The answer is d) wrote:

wejo wrote:

Bolt ran 19.78 in both the semis and final. In the semis (-.3 wind) it wasn't all out. In the finals, Bolt was going for it saying he wanted the WR. (-.5 wind).

So was it slow because a) the track was wet b) Bolt was tired from 19.78 the day before or c) he tried to hard instead of relaxing

D) The Brazilan officials erased the start line and painted a new line a few meters back OR they erased the finish line and repainted it a few meters further down the track.

They maybe didnt want the would be 200 meter suburb performances in this race to be the spot light of these games for one reason or another

This notion is bothering me seriously.

The Olympic officials measured the distance with laser range finders several times. The track distances are the most accurate, ever. Even if they weren't and were only at a 1970's level of accuracy the times would not change at all.

Also wet tracks have no large variation in times unless the track is very waterlogged. Slightly damp tracks with some light humidity are generally faster conditions for sprinting as air resistance is lower and permeability of the track surface is higher giving higher rebound coefficients.

Essentially these were fast conditions, and with temps in the low 70's with high humidity these athletes were not freezing but were quite comfortable.

Now, given that this is Brazil, we could find out that distances were off, but likely in that case the tracks are usually SHORTER not longer as two inches can influence times at the sprint level. Its unlikely but its possible given the situation in Brazil politically and economically.

So, we have good conditions, good temps, good track, bad wind. These performances were just bad thats all there is too it. Not just bad abnormally bad for every sprint even except the 400.

If you really watched that race, Bolt tied up. The field gained on him in the final meters whereas in previous championships, his lead expanded in the later stages of the race.

His fitness was surely hurting from the time missed due to the hamstring injury and lack of racing this season.

Also, the headwind and wet track are going to effect sprinters to a much greater degree than people think.. They are getting hit with more air molecules per second.

I believe he was in 19.4x shape. With the wind and the wet, I think he lost about 3 tenths. The wetness effects the elasticity of a runner. Something about the coolness of the rain dampens the elastic effect of the tendons. Just a casual observation after coaching 20 years.

Hot track with a tail wind, he runs 19.4x. He is nowhere near WR shape, but still could have put down a heck of a time.

Drug testing has improved some.

Just about everyone ran much slower in the final. It was the conditions on the track, not that Bolt is getting old or because he's been injured.

De Grasse ran 19.8 in the semis and was able to smile with Bolt the last 15 meters. He would have ran like 19.70- 19.75 if he pushed it to the line. In the final he could only manage 20.02.

Bolt ran 19.78 in semis and straight up relaxed in the last 40-50 meters. He was definitely capable of running 19.4 at this olympics, despite recent injuries, but the conditions on the track in the final made an all out performance by him only match his time from the semis. I hope next year Bolt does take a shot at the 200m WR. If he can jog in a 19.78 with recent injuries this year, then next year assuming he actually stays healthy all year he miiight be able to take a run at his record. Hell, if he runs a couple DL races in the next few weeks and really goes for a fast time that he wanted to get in the Rio final, he might pop out a 19.3.

Reasons off the top of my head:

1) I believe almost the entire field was doubling, perhaps tripling if you include relay rounds. So, 2x200 and 3x100 and whatever in relays prior to 200 final.

2) Looking back at 2008 and 2012, looks like most did the 200 only or those who doubled in 2008 and 2012, Bolt, Blake, were 4 years younger. As for the younger guys like DeGrasse see #1 above.

3) For Bolt, it does matter that he is older.

4) Effort is the enemy of technique in sprints, but usually Bolt can make is body do anything he wants. (see #3 above).

5) De Grasse was relaxed in the semi's and set a national record. He didn't look as relaxed in the final (see #4 above)

Cpaiglesias wrote:

the answerman wrote:

All the Testosterone at the stadium was used up in the 'Womens' 800.

POTD

Yes POTD

Running a WR in a post-Olympics Euro meet pays a lot more.

End of thread.

;-)

Forget to mention:

Times were overall slower, but not terribly slower than 2008 and 2012 after the medals. So really, the top 4 were slower than those years, but after that, almost to 7th place would have placed 4th in 2008. 2012 was much faster, but again 1-4.

https://www.olympic.org/london-2012/athletics/200m-men

https://www.olympic.org/beijing-2008/athletics/200m-men

http://www.bing.com/search?q=200m+results+rio&src=IE-TopResult&FORM=IETR02&conversationid=

I don't know the answer, but the track surface may be newer, which would slow times down for sprints.

Looks like they all ran much slower in the qualifying rounds in London.

Wind for 200m final in London was +.4, but his record times are a negative wind and his time in Beijing was faster than London.

Nobody is on as much drugs as the past OG

angry willy wrote:

Running a WR in a post-Olympics Euro meet pays a lot more.

End of thread.

;-)

I'll pay to see Bolt set a WR. Hell I'll pay you if you he does.

Its looking increasingly unlikely he sets a WR ever again which sucks.

All the Sprint records are practically unbeatable. We may not see any sprint WR's for years and years. I mostly blame Bolt for this, as it is his fault for running so fast.

I had this same question, too. NBC didn't focus on the slow times at all, and I don't think they ever even showed the list of eight race times.

I was hoping that Lashawn Merritt would medal, and he would have if he would have run the same time from his semifinal or the Olympic Trials.

I would like to have seen NBC interview him after the race. I haven't seen or read anything about him or his appraisal of the race.

Best explanation I read was the rain and humidity slowing down all the bodies. Think of trying to throw or hit something in denser air. The conditions did not allow for fast times because of the air density and rain.