With specific training and properly motivated, if someone put the over/under at 50 seconds and he was given a few opportunities to race himself into shape, I'd take the under.
(although I can't believe no one has mentioned his propensity to cramp).
With specific training and properly motivated, if someone put the over/under at 50 seconds and he was given a few opportunities to race himself into shape, I'd take the under.
(although I can't believe no one has mentioned his propensity to cramp).
Human Torch wrote:(although I can't believe no one has mentioned his propensity to cramp).
He's played a thousand NBA games, is annually one of the league leaders in minutes played, and the one game this year is the only time I remember him being affected by cramping. Maybe I'm forgetting something, but he's one of the real ironmen of the league and a propensity for cramping is news to me.
Why won't people understand the importance of scale? And not the scales you stand on to get a verdict on your ability.
Let's talk horses. We take a 6ft horse, well trained for racing. And a 3ft tall mini horse, the very fastest there ever was. Let them race, without riders or equivalent weight riders. Surely the big one will win? Scale is different to such a degree that finer variables become irrelevant.
The we take a 60ft T-Rex and his 10ft cousin. Similar builds. Both are 200ft behind you, and agry hungry. 2 alleys to flee into : the one the little guy will take, and the one T-Rex will take. Both are equally deadly to be caught by. You'll take on the little guy, because it's slower.
Now take a human giant. Imagine they existed. Somehow a race of humans that is built to scale, but much taller. Say 12ft tall vs a typical 6ft tall 170lbs 400m runner. With same bone density and everything, that makes a 170*2³ = 1360lb giant. Still just twice as tall. But twice as wide, twice as deep.
Now this 12ft guy may effectively be a 400*2=800m specialist, but let's not get into that ;-)
So will the 6ft human stand a change against a twice as tall, 8x as heavy, 8x as powerful upscaled copy?
Due to it being a sprint, speed being high, air drag being a high percentage of total energy exerted, the tall guy has an advantage right there.
4x the frontal surface area, 8x the power. And, air drag is the main resistance factor for the little guy. So it really matters.
In terms of acceleration over the first 15m or so, it may be a wash. Equal power to weight. Then the little guy approaches cruise speed, and the big guy has more left to give.
Big guy won't go twice as fact, but he will fast alright.
This doesn't mean a LJ type would automatically run WR's in the 400m. He'd need to be a 400m specialist probably, as his scale advantage doesn't bring enough to be able to afford much in the way of flaws.
Potentially, if an ideally build 400m runner and trained for it, there are a few % of extra speed to play with. Doesn't matter that you're 6'7" at all. Height helps.
The fastest 100-200m runner ever, who never really tried 400m, is also the tallest guy in the pro scene. Why? Really good build and technique, plus a nice amount of height and mass. Bolt may not be bulky, but scale him down to from 6'5" to say 5'10 and he's a real slender kid. 200lb/90kg goes to 149lb/67kg then. Then, Bolt is a skinny runner that was scaled up real nicely. Lots of extra power, not as much extra air drag. When he gets it right, his start isn't even much to complain about.
On a bicycle, uphill, a big guy CAN cut it also for instance. As long as he has the lung capacity to match his weight. I've done that myself. I am close to Bolt's height and weight, just not shape. But I have driven skinny little mountain goats to despair by just climbing faster. A good pair of lungs to match my weight does the trick.
SCALE MATTERS, not absolute height or weight. If you're tall, you actually need the weight to be able to push through the air at high speeds. This is much less a factor in long distance, which is perhaps why you see little guys having less problems keeping up.
And every LR readers tells a tall guy to not go running. For scientifically nonsensical reasons.
I agree with 51-52
His best event might be the 200 ,possibly breaking 21. I put him at 10.9x for the 100
There's also the question of running technique, which no one has mentioned. Basketball and football players tend to run with a lower centre of gravity, with more side-to-side motion. It allows them to make quick stops and starts, and to change direction on a dime. But it does lose them some time in a track race.
By contrast, pure runners are trained to be as efficient as possible in driving their body forward, without wasting any energy with side-to-side movements.
This video of soccer player Cristiano Ronaldo sprinting is a perfect illustration of the difference:
nobody has ever set a world record over any distance has been over 200 lbs. Bolt is heaviest, he's over 200 lbs now. but was around 85kg when he went 9.5x.
So no, James cannot run anywhere near 44. nowhere near 46.
but drop the weight down by 50 pounds and anything is possible.
longjack wrote:
nobody has ever set a world record over any distance has been over 200 lbs. Bolt is heaviest, he's over 200 lbs now. but was around 85kg when he went 9.5x.
So no, James cannot run anywhere near 44. nowhere near 46.
but drop the weight down by 50 pounds and anything is possible.
Was he really that skinny for his WR? There can't be much muscle to a guy that height at that weight.
Makes you wonder why sprinters bulk up at all. With Lemaitre doing 9.9 looking like a lanky mid distance runner.
If Lebron signs with Phoenix, then the thread linked above would apply and maybe he could run a 44.
Rational Man2 wrote:
He could easily will himself to a sub 47, me thinks
You thinks stupid
You should be banned from LRC for even posting this.
Le Foot wrote:
Rational Man2 wrote:He could easily will himself to a sub 47, me thinks
You thinks stupid
Obvious troll post. Can't believe you fell for it.