But...but...but...Bolt is 6'5"!!!

Let me say it one more way:

Longer leg length might provide some advantage at some point, but there is no compelling evidence to suggest that it provides any advantage at Bolt's height, let alone enough to beat every doper in history, no matter what their height.

5'11" with an average leg length may indeed provide an advantage over 5'5" with average leg length. Longer-than-normal leg length at 6'1" for Bailey, or maybe for Cason at 5'7", may provide a 100m advantage over normal-legged competitors. The advantage may actually extend up to something like 6'2" or 6'3", which is normal leg length for Bailey, and is actual height for guys like Lemaitre and Lewis--or it may not, we just don't know, because there are so many other factors involved.

The evidence in favor of the leg-length argument is totally uncompelling when tested against the evidence in favor of the doping argument, in my opinion. Not only that, but the evidence AGAINST the leg-length argument is at least as compelling, if not more compelling, than the evidence AGAINST the doping argument, in my opinion.

I absolutely cannot wait for Moscow to play itself out.

Couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

How many years did Bolt run the 200/400 before taking up the 100m? What other sprinters did it that way, yep....none! So here's a guy who dedicated years to working on 200m speed endurance. Now add that 6-5 stride and if you think it doesn't make a huge difference in bis game you don't know sprinting.

Moscow means absoluetly nothing, Bolt is not the same sprinter and it's obvious. His sub 9.7/19.3 days are over. Sure he can win both sprints but he won't be wowing us any longer.

There are few interesting articles out there about how his height is his.. ace in the hole/key to success.. you need to give them a read. Easy to find.

I'm about Bolt's height, and my legs are a good bit longer from what I can tell.

I am 36 y/o and do little running. Also, I weigh a bit more than Bolt, thanks to a huge fat percentage.

I do mid distance training and usually can sprint with the faster young kids. People tip me that I barely lift my knees. It's probably because with my huge legs, I don't NEED to angle my joints much. So my pretty slow muscle fibres (I can't sprint a bike to save my life) are still sufficient to make some serious ground.

I stand by my opinion that height vs air drag is the key factor why (super) tall people have an edge.

Isn't that fast Nigerian girl also built like a basketballer?

In all sprint disciples we're seeing tall people moving up the ranks. Coincidence of course.

paste

Stride length is the amount of distance covered from the touchdown of one foot (let's see left foot strike) until the left foot touches the ground again. Step length is the distance covered from the touchdown of one foot (left foot) until the touchdown of the other foot (right foot). Bolt clearly has an advantage here because he is taller than the other sprinters. I went back and watched the race in slow motion and it took Bolt 41 steps, or 20.5 strides, to run 100 meters. The third place finisher, American Justin Gatlin, took 44 steps or 22 strides to complete the 100 meters. Simply put, Bolt covers a much greater distance with each step and stride than any other competitor, giving him a distinct advantage. On average, Bolt covers 2.44 meters with each step, which is roughly equal to 8 feet, and 4.88 meters per stride, or nearly 16 feet. Justin Gatlin covers 2.27 meters per step, which is equal to 7.45 feet per step. These numbers are just the average stride and step lengths over the entire race. Since each runners takes a shorter stride at the start of the race, the actual stride and step lengths are going to be greater towards the middle and end of the race.

If height is not an advantage or even a hindrance as some here seem to be suggesting can we then expect to see 5ft 5in guys running 9.85 or better?

The fact is Bolt's incredible stride length visible to anyone paying attention gives him a distinct advantage combined with the fact that has a turnover rate typically associated with shorter 5ft 10-11 sprinters. Why is this so hard to understand? As Ato Boldon said in his post London 100M coverage when Bolt needs only 41 steps to finish a 100M race and everyone else needs 44 or more Bolt has to have a bad day to lose and is difficult to beat when it counts.

Whaaat? wrote:

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Stone: "If everything else is equal the guy with the longer stride will win any sprint."

But, of course, everything is NOT equal, which is why Shaq, Bol, Ming, Sun, or anybody else over 7', are not good sprinters, even if they were to have good vmax, which, BTW, they don't.

None of the people you've mentioned have been sprinting since elementary school. Instead, they all ended up playing basketball. Why? Slow down and take a deep breath, the answer will come to you.

Geezer, I noticed that you conveniently passed on an answer. It's cool though, you must have internalized it because you alluded to the fact in your long post above.

Who says taller wasn't better for sprints all along? It's not just better for basketball... that's an American mentality. Maybe the Jamaicans have taught the world something different and you are witnessing the beginning of an evolution in sprint.

Consider the economic factors here. In the USA, if you are of certain height or speed, you are automatically nudged, hell - pushed to the sport of "choice", based on your physical characteristics. Rarely will that sport ever be T&F. The high-dollar allure of basketball, football or even baseball, means most with potential will scoff at T&F.

Jamaica is the complete opposite. Basketball popularity is low and few schools don't even bother with basketball courts, much less teams and players. Female netball sees more popularity than traditional basketball for men. Combine that with the relatively low cost of the infrastructure needed for T&F and it's a wrap. Now, combine that with the zeal that Jamaicans have for Track to begin with. We all know about Champs right?

Cricket and football (soccer), while immensely popular, barely enjoy an advantage over T&F. So if student A is 6'6, he can easily end up on the track. That likelihood has been further enhanced by Jamaica's recent gains and... Bolt. Even so, with Bolt being the highest paid athlete in Jamaica, Kobe Bryant's salary still triples his! Where is the incentive for tall athletes to become sprinters in the USA?

This is why this small country is able to produce so many good T&F athletes - versus the infinitely more populated super-power right next door.

OhReallyNow wrote:

Ato Boldon said in his post London 100M coverage when Bolt needs only 41 steps to finish a 100M race and everyone else needs 44 or more Bolt has to have a bad day to lose and is difficult to beat when it counts.

Damn, Geezer. You're losing ground faster than a coastline hit by tsunamis.

Whaaat? wrote:

OhReallyNow wrote:

Ato Boldon said in his post London 100M coverage when Bolt needs only 41 steps to finish a 100M race and everyone else needs 44 or more Bolt has to have a bad day to lose and is difficult to beat when it counts.

Damn, Geezer. You're losing ground faster than a coastline hit by tsunamis.

OK, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were trying to be amusing.

Good one!

Stone: "Simply put, Bolt covers a much greater distance with each step and stride than any other competitor, giving him a distinct advantage."

Wrong. First of all, a greater stride length must not be associated with an equivalently decreased stride frequency, and stride length cannot logically be isolated as the single factor. Second, It doesn't "give" him an advantage, it "is the result" of his advantage.

Wrong again, wow!

Anytime you reach out with anything longer than someone else is reaching out with, you will get there faster or sooner. Simply physics. This is no different. You see it takes him less strides to cover a 100m, this is simply common sense.

Do you really think we are seeing him do what he's done at 5-9?

Stone--

Your original post read:

"I can't believe anyone could question the fact that the longer a "fast" stide is the better. Simply common sense.

Nobody is talking about a slow tall guy here. If everything else is equal the guy with the longer stride will win any sprint."

...and I asked you to identify with precision, what everything else is that is equal.

You have not answered that question, which leaves your original post without any basis for understanding.

Your recent response doesn't clarify anything, it merely exhibits exactly the same problem: you pick another point in time, and ask that we assess your position relative to your undefined requirement that "everything else is equal".

Your posts just cannot be understood until you answer the question I first asked, explicitly, in reference to Bolt.

And you are again assuming what you set out to prove. Don't you guys understand this very basic idea?

STRIDE LENGTH is a SYMPTOM or RESULT of an underlying CAUSE. His stride length, even if it is unique, is not the factor of interest, it is HOW he achieves his stride length, while not incurring a equivalent diminution in stride frequency...

...and that is only at top speed, and says nothing about acceleration, although the underlying cause(s)of improved acceleration are the same: form + average power during ground contact, average power being the change in work over the change in time, work being force x distance moved by the CofM while the force is acting.

It is about, and only about, average power, and form, to optimally direct the force that is being applied.

Let me ask everybody this: do you think it is true that those sprinters exhibiting a longer stride at top speed, also exhibit a longer ground contact time?

While you consider that, I will leave you with this: I do believe that a longer-legged sprinter can exhibit a higher vmax and better speed endurance than can a shorter-legged sprinter, BUT in order to do so the longer-legged sprinter will need to exhibit a very particular type of form. I also suggest that Bolt has exhibited that very form, on several occasions, and I do not dispute that if clean, he would have an excellent vmax and SE, if and when he can exhibit that form.

We see vast differences in his vmax and SE form between when he is out-of-shape, and when he is in championship shape. Surely, some of that improvement is due to just simple practice--but remember, PED's enable form, including the form Bolt needs to make use of his leg length. That does not determine whether or not he is doping, just that doping is one possible route to that achievement.

But again, none of that says that he will be better overall in the 100m, or that he will be better during the acceleration phase, or any part of the acceleration phase, except for the very last bit, the high-speed acceleration.

I didn't know I had to draw you pictures.

Bolt is fast and would be fast if he were 5-6, now take that same speed an attach it to a 6-5 stride instead of a 5-6, 5-9 or 6 foot. How you cannot grasp the concept is beyond me. It's beyond simple as you try to make it out to be some complex ordeal, it's not!

Usian Bolt has a totally unique blend of speed, endurance and stride. It's actually outerworldly. Everyone sees it, the guuys is the best ever becausew he takes less steps to get there, has great speed and incredible endurance.

If you can't see that I can't help you, I thought you knew this stuff, you appear....rookie!

Sprintgeezer wrote:

it is HOW he achieves his stride length, while not incurring a equivalent diminution in stride frequency...

Power and speed-endurance developed by a dedication to the sport from the age of twelve. Extreme weight regimen... anteroposterior hip extensions + axial hip extensions.

Let me add this....

paste

The difference between the ordinary and the elite comes down to the pressure applied as the foot comes down, and how long the foot touches the ground.

Whereas the average step of a casual runner can propel someone forward with around 500-600 pounds of force, an Olympic sprinter manages more than 1,000.

And when the foot touches the ground during a stride it is on the ground for about 0.12 seconds in the case of average runners - but the elite sprinter can be 33% more efficient by moving off in just 0.08 seconds.

"The amount of time [one's legs are] in the air is 0.12, regardless if you're fast or slow," Weyand theorised. "An elite sprinter gets the aerial time they need with less time on the ground to generate that lift - or to get back up in the air - because they can hit harder."

Where Bolt gets an advantage over his rivals, then, is his ability to get those same advantages from a larger frame.

The Jamaican covers a 100m sprint in 41 strides, whereas the majority of his rivals will do so in 44.

Taller sprinters have traditionally struggled to work as efficiently, however, as the discipline also requires balance and control as well as power. The shorter build, such as that of Bolt's closest rival, Tyson Gay, who stands at five foot 11 inches, has been seen in the past as the ideal size. Bolt, by contrast, is six inches taller.

"He has a very unusual combination of being extremely tall and relatively massive and being able to accelerate well. Those things are at odds with each other," said Dr Mike Young, a strength and speed coach.

"He accelerates better than all but one guy in the world - behind [compatriot] Asafa Powell - but because he's so massive, he takes fewer strides. If you're that large, once you're moving, you stay moving."

And as Dan Pfaff, who coached 1996 100m Olympic champion Donovan Bailey puts it, "Would you rather take 44 steps to your car or 41?"

Stone: "Anytime you reach out with anything longer than someone else is reaching out with, you will get there faster or sooner."

Unbelievable.

Are you really that dense?

I can't respond to you any more, we apparently do not share a universe in which the laws of physics that we experience are shared.

Get back to me when you understand why, and how, what you said is not necessarily true.

Speaking of being dense, wow! That's right simpleton, if you have longer legs you will get there sooner if the speed is equal. Where did you go to school? You appear about 19 and unemployed.

Like talking to some kid.

OhReallyNow: "The fact is Bolt's incredible stride length visible to anyone paying attention gives him a distinct advantage"

It doesn't "give" him an advantage, it "is the result of" whatever advantage he enjoys.

It is a result of something, and that something is what is of interest here. What enables him to have such a long stride, while not having a concomitantly lower stride frequency?

Nobody yet have any opinion on whether or not he has a longer ground contact time than do shorter-legged sprinters, say Blake?

Pity is beginning to set in here.

You follow sprinting?

The less strides it takes to run a 100m the better off you are. Ok now....Bolt is a rare breed of sprinter, he runs like a much shorter man, but he has a stride unlike anyone else.

Do you understand any of that? Everyyone sees what is going on, you don't?

You really do need to bone up o this stuff, oh yeah, change your name to....Speedwannabe.

Whaaat--

Again, there are plenty of football positions that train sprints in HS and college.

There are very few who actually make it into the pro's.

There are lots of sprint/power-trained tall black guys out there. How come when they wash out of football at a relatively early age, they don't appear on the track, while they are still young, like 21 or 22 years old? How come they don't compete while in college? How come the shorter guys DO compete?

The incentive is absolutely there, once they realize their prospects in football or basketball are finished--which comes right after the draft for many of them, if they even make it into the draft.

Sprinting changes from when you are a kid. Small kids accelerate much less, and the younger they are, the less they accelerate. 5/6-year-old's reach their max v at probably 5m, and hold it for 95m, lol When you are a small kid, acceleration isn't nearly as important as when you are in your prime.

I do think that taller kids can have an advantage in the sprints. Do you not see this in whatever development system you are connected with? I see it all the time where I am, with a few notable exceptions. In fact, I remember it from when I was a kid, 35-40 years ago. I was always competing against kids who were a head taller than me. I would beat them, but they were close, and they were the best at their schools.

Read my longer posts to get more information on the alleged selection phenomenon. There is no doubt that football and basketball take some talent away from sprinting in the US--no doubt. Especially long sprinting in basketball, and short sprinting in track.

Go back to the very early days, when there was no real pro football or basketball, and track was big, to try to eliminate the selection effect. Where were all the 6'5", or even 6'4", champion sprinters?

Surely there were tall guys in college. Yes, rowing and basketball were popular, even football, in some places--but not in all. Where were the tall sprint champions, if not from the USA, from elsewhere in the world where there weren't so many sport opportunities?

Look at Ryan Bailey in comparison to Bolt.

Bailey is a guy who I have always suspected of doping, even when others here convinced me that I had no really good rational basis for that belief. Where is Bailey now? Nowhere. He has gone down.

That guy goes 6'4", and is the farthest thing from a natural sprinter that I have ever seen. I don't buy him for a second, and I take his having gone down as confirmation that he didn't achieve what he achieved, naturally.

Bolt, OTOH, is naturally great. Not 9.58 great, but I think 9.85-or-slightly-below great. Unlike Bailey, he could back off and still be in the mix.

Bolt may well be one of the very best ever, cleanly--I have expressed that opinion myself. But just like Bailey wasn't 9.88 good, Bolt wasn't 9.58 good.