Why on earth does IAAF considers Bolt's 9.58 equivalent to a 12:21.34 5k / 7:12.10 3k?

George213 wrote:

ex-runner wrote:

It's pretty obvious that's exactly what I said.

If Athlete X came along and broke the current WR held by KB by the same margin Bolt is ahead of Gay then that Athlete X would run 12:28.

I don't think 9.58 is way stronger than 12:37 though. Sprinting is comparatively weak compared to distance running. Probably because other sports (football etc) can draw away talented sprinters.

What? It should be the opposite. Those who can't sprint and don't have the coordination for contact sports have to run, not the other way round.

Not at all. Track and field is the least compelling sport of all sports. Lowest money, hardest work. You'd rather be an average player in any other sport rather than a top 10 athlete in athletics.

Plenty of athletes in other sports could make fine sprinters if they took up the sport and dedicated themselves to it. There are speed and power athletes in most team sports.

Meanwhile, since the 80s African countries with huge populations have had a love affair with distance running. Ethiopians and Kenyans taking up the sport en-masse. Bikila and Bekele and Haile are legendary. The talent density in distance running is much deeper worldwide. You couldn't have a Bolt in the distance events.

Just look at the nation's in the men's 100m Vs say the men's 800. In sprinting it is USA, Jamaica that's pretty much it. China has recently realised that there is no reason it can't play too with its huge population. In the men's 800 you have top athletes from Kenyan, Algeria, USA, GB, Poland, Puerto Rico, Botswana, Morocco etc.

Christian Coleman rewrote the 60m WR. Taking it down from 6.39 to 6.34. That's about 7 seconds equivalent in the 5k. Most years, only a couple athletes break 6.50. The gap is huge because the depth is poor. It is better in the 100m but the 60m just extrapolates the issue.

Distance running made its leaps and bounds in the 90s with records tumbling to where they sit today. A few extreme talents rewriting the records. Sprinting didn't have that, only Bolt.

You often get a closer finish in the men's 5k or 1500 than you do in the 100m.

And don't talk to me about drugs. The men's 1500 is just as doped as the men's 100. There is still far greater depth in the distance events.

That 9.58 100m is pretty good, a real outlier. However, it is only worth the same number of points as a 97.83m javelin throw.

Jan Zelezny's 98.48m WR, on the other hand, would be equivalent to a 9.55-9.56 100m on those tables.

Therefore, Zelezny is clearly the real GOAT of athletics ;)

Lots of bluster, no substance. Contradictions.

Not a good case, at all.

Yep, Zelezny is a giant.

If you go by %difference to next best athlete, a direct equivalent of 9.58 would be 7'17.99. That said, both of the 9.69 runs can be queried - one had a 2m/s wind and was from a doper; the other was also from a doper.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Lots of bluster, no substance. Contradictions.

Not a good case, at all.

You are good at debating.

Here's some data for you if you don't like qualitative arguments.

Number of guys in the top 30 times for 100m: 6

Number of guys in the top 30 times for 5k: 17

ex-runner wrote:

Here's some data for you if you don't like qualitative arguments.

Number of guys in the top 30 times for 100m: 6

Number of guys in the top 30 times for 5k: 17

And before you say it, if you take out Bolt who of course has run quite a few of the fastest times ever then the count is still 6 names, Greene gets added in lieu of Bolt.

I can't stop laughing at the assertion that distance running has more depth than sprinting.

Hi ex! I’m not debating, I have no position on the issue.

But regarding what you said:

1) t&f is nowhere near the lowest-money sport. Is has more money than even swimming, at least for athletes—not to mention essentially all of the other individual Olympic sports.

2) “other sport” speed and power do mot make for a “fine sprinter”. I know because that’s me, and I have known many like me, more than a few in pro sports.

3) Worldwide distance talent density doesn’t 1:1 correspond to performances. Distance takes real training, real work, real time—much more so than does sprinting, even at the highest level. And even at that, you have offered no evidence of your still-unsubstantiated claim.

4) the 100m is not just USA and JAM, it is truly worldwide. Now there are competitors from everywhere at the highest levels, represented in all the major finals. It is however true that there is likely an untapped pool of African talent—but the same goes for distance.

5) the 60 is not the 100. Lots of guys could have gotten that WR had they cared to—BJ first, then Greene, Dolt, Powell, etc. Nobody has ever taken it as seriously as CC. It is an event that the top 100m athletes don’t care about, and essentially never have. On the whole, the 60m does not inform the highest level of the 100m.

6) the 100m had the same bloom of step-function times that distance had in the 90’s, it was the BJ era. 9.7’s all of a sudden appeared as the order of the day. 9.79-9.78-9.77-9.74-9.72 before 9.69 and 9.58. 9.7’s were unthinkable until BJ.

7) presence of drugs is not the question, the issue is how well they work for individual requirements. Everyone in both the 1500 and 100 is and has been on them, but Dolt is still head-and-shoulders above all, at the moment.

ex-runner wrote:

ex-runner wrote:

Here's some data for you if you don't like qualitative arguments.

Number of guys in the top 30 times for 100m: 6

Number of guys in the top 30 times for 5k: 17

And before you say it, if you take out Bolt who of course has run quite a few of the fastest times ever then the count is still 6 names, Greene gets added in lieu of Bolt.

You necessitate lots of response because you don’t put the work in up-front.

Basic times? Why 30? Competitive opportunities for real fast times? Etc. I leave it to you to do more work. The figure you gave says essentially nothing, and only suggests further refinement, research, and explanation.

Which is up to you, ex.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

ex-runner wrote:

And before you say it, if you take out Bolt who of course has run quite a few of the fastest times ever then the count is still 6 names, Greene gets added in lieu of Bolt.

You necessitate lots of response because you don’t put the work in up-front.

Basic times? Why 30? Competitive opportunities for real fast times? Etc. I leave it to you to do more work. The figure you gave says essentially nothing, and only suggests further refinement, research, and explanation.

Which is up to you, ex.

Provide one single argument that sprinting has more depth than distance running.

I told you that I am not arguing for any such proposition. I freely admit that I have no idea, but I am always willing to be convinced.

You are the one saying that you know, now you have to back it up with something worthwhile.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

GoldenMile wrote:

Maybe he doped, but there’s zero proof of it as of now.

This is incorrect. It IS true that no adverse analytical finding has been reported.

Can you tell me about the proof of Bolt doping? I'm not trying to be snarky.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

I told you that I am not arguing for any such proposition. I freely admit that I have no idea, but I am always willing to be convinced.

You are the one saying that you know, now you have to back it up with something worthwhile.

I feel I've given my response. I will sum as:

Sprinting is heavily dominated by a few athletes all time as evidenced by the top 30 times. I could choose top 50 it doesn't matter. 'Depth' in general is assumed to be related to statistics i.e the more participants the deeper the event/sport. A strong event will have many participants and a weak event fewer. This proves that distance running couldn't have a Bolt, there are more athletes running high quality times in the 5k vs 100m for one guy to be miles ahead.

Speed and power athletes are quite knowingly drawn away from track and field. The fast twitch guys play NFL, NHL, basketball and football (soccer). This is true in America but also in Central and West Africa, the 'roots' of many top sprinters from Jamaica. Football is hugely more popular in Africa than sprinting. Where are the sprinters from Sudan, Nigeria etc? Very few. Yet we are told that Jamaica, this tiny island nation with a population of under 3 million can produce all the best sprinters of all time because of their West African genes.

UK sprinting all-time is terrible compared to middle distance. There is no culture for it here. Reflects in the depth.

Meanwhile Ethiopia has a population of 100 million and they all love distance running. Plus Kenya. Plus Morocco and Algeria in its time. And the UK at one point.

GoldenMile wrote:

Sprintgeezer wrote:

This is incorrect. It IS true that no adverse analytical finding has been reported.

Can you tell me about the proof of Bolt doping? I'm not trying to be snarky.

Still waiting on this.

seasoned ranker wrote:

I can't stop laughing at the assertion that distance running has more depth than sprinting.

Agreed. True hilarity.

Ingebritsen just ran 7:17 for a WR bozo