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

Big Fan of Yours wrote:

Stone wrote:

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.

Wait. Wait. Did you just say that "if you have longer legs you will get there sooner if the speed is equal."

Holy smokes, I LOVE this place!!!

L E G S P E E D, aka turnover rate. Try to keep up.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

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?

Geezer, you're missing a few things. Bolt has been honing his craft since primary school. How many USA elementary and middle school coaches would push a 6'5 youngster (or whatever height he was at the time), to track and field? By the time their pro-ball dreams fade away, they are relatively up in age and maybe not as enthused with track.

How come shorter guys compete? Because there are infinitely more of them to do so. A 6'5 individual is rare to begin with, much less one who takes up T&F professionally. Even then, there are no guarantees. Being tall can be an advantage but if you don't know how to run, have low endurance, etc... it ain't gonna happen.

The Jamaican system practically steers athletes, tall short and in between, to T&F.

I didn't reveal the nature of my interest because there isn't one. I told you already that your argument is flawed, thats why I argue. Your arguments are just too stupid to ignore....I'm not Jamaican, have never been to or lived in Jamaica. Nor do I have any family or friends in Jamaica. I've coached ONE jamaican athlete out 100's in my years of coaching. Assuming that my argument is born from some affiliation in some way with Jamaica is doing nothing more than clouding your ability to comprehend.

"Bolt CAN run slower, with the same stride length, by applying less force."

That's what I responding to when I said Bolt would NOT run slower with the same stride length and rate.....my point being that if force application is the culprit for his stride length, than applying less force would mean that he's not covering as much ground. Which equals a shorter stride length. Meaning he's NOT going to run slower if his stride length and stride rate remain the same. If his stride length remained the same by applying less power, he would be over striding....

Did you notice how many questions you left unanswered and how many points you ignored......

Do you not understand what better athlete means? Is it that hard to judge who the better athlete is between Shaq and Yao? Did you even try to understand the point I was making? You're saying Bolt shouldn't be able to do what he does at his height. I'm essentially telling you that you're ignorant for assuming that a persons height will without a doubt in every case hinder their ability athletically. Which makes you part of the problem as to why so many tall athletes aren't trained to be ABLE to do those things....Asafa and Spearmon are both 6'3" yet one can accelerate, one can't. Asafa has an ability that Spearmon lacks despite them being the same height. So it's either that Asafa is more gifted athletically than Spearmon or Asafa was better coached than Spearmon. Keeping with the trend of the thread and assuming both guys are dirty, why can Powell accelerate well but Spearmon can't....better yet, why was Bolt able to out accelerate Spearmon during his "clean years" while being 6'5"...

And how do you not notice the contradiction in your argument when you say that if Bolt was clean he would likely be among the fastest if not the fastest 100m guy ever.....while a the same time saying that he's not faster than certain other guys. You're absolutely certain that Bolt isn't a superior physical specimen while being absolutely certain that of these other things.....THAT'S why I say you NEED for Bolt to be doped. Otherwise his height would actually play a factor as to why doped or clean he's run faster than anyone before him.

SInce afterall you KNOW that Tyson would have run as fast even though at his best he's at 9.75 basic. Ben Johnson according to you was guaranteed to be as fast as Bolt despite the fact that his fastest time(9.79) was with a 1.1w. Essentially making it no faster than his 9.83. Slower actually.... Yohan Blake in my personal opinion was never running faster than 9.69 again. Asafa might have had the potential but he's got too many technical issues to allow him to maintain the speed required.

How can you be so ignorant and stupid as to assume that I would insinuate that Dwight Howard would be the better 100m athlete? I merely pointed out the discrepancy in athletic ability of taller athletes. Showing you that in relative terms a taller athlete can achieve what a shorter athlete can. I also put it plain and simple the reason why relative proportions play a great deal in why and how and taller athlete can mimic the athletic abilities of a shorter one.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

I divide such activities into 3 types:

walking

jogging

running

sprinting

each with its own particular movement, training, special adaptations, movements, range

Sprinting is more than just "very fast running", as running is more than just very fast jogging, etc.

.

I know this issue is a bit off the issue about Bolt's height. But since you usually get down in the weeds on whatever you're analyzing, I was a bit bothered by your forceful and false claim that, "sprinting isn't running".

Why are you making this claim? Sprinting is obviously a form of running, jogging is a form of running. Walking is not runnning.

Moving bipedly by having both feet off the surface for a moment in the stride as one moves forward or backward is running. Sprinting just is running at or near one's maximum speed over a relativly short distance.

Saying sprinting isn't running is like saying freestyling or backstroking is not swimming.

When a person gives a maximum effort for 100m and clocks 14.0 seconds...were they sprinting?

Dont know in what manner his physiology is superior? Did you read anything? It's more like you're just not bright enough to comprehend when it's already been explained.

Bolt being 6'5" isn't the SOLE factor in his being fast. This is the 30th time i've said that. It DOES indeed require more power for him to move at similar speeds as shorter athletes, but he doesn't need to move at the EXACT same rate as them to get from point A to B faster. If a person of his height possesses the strength and power necessary to move his longer levers at a similar speed as his shorter counter parts he WILL be faster. Consider the fact that if he is on drugs, that action will be enhanced. Consider the fact that his tendons will stretch and rebound over a longer distance and how that plays a role in speed maintenance......now maybe you'll realize that being 6'5" makes a world of a difference....when taken into context. Bolt is proportionally built in a larger scale the same way and in some cases better than a lot of athletes shorter than him(and taller). Not perfect, but much closer to it than Obikwelu, Ryan Bailey, Wallace Spearmon, JJ Johnson, etc.

You're too blinded to even notice that I never denied that Bolt could be or is on drugs. All you care about is saying that he is on drugs....

Mr NFL wrote:

I'd say Bob Hayes was the fastest. After that I'd have a hard time choosing between the rest of the folks below:

Bob Hayes - 5' 11"

Ron Brown - 5' 11"

Willie Gault - 6' 0"

Darrell Green - 5' 9"

Bo Jackson - 6' 1"

Renaldo Nehemiah - 6' 1"

Deion Sanders - 6' 1"

That's pretty much it. The fastest current player, or maybe as of two years ago is Chris Johnson who is listed at 6'1". It is also worth noting that NFL heights tend to be overstated.

Whaaat? wrote:

Big Fan of Yours wrote:

Wait. Wait. Did you just say that "if you have longer legs you will get there sooner if the speed is equal."

Holy smokes, I LOVE this place!!!

L E G S P E E D, aka turnover rate. Try to keep up.

Sorry, but what was said was SPEED not L E G S P E E D.

Try to keep up.

It actually looks like this...

Trindon Holliday

Jacoby Ford

Bob Hayes

Ron Brown

Alvis Whitted

Darrel Green

Sam Graddy

...Randy Moss??????????

Trindon Holliday is the fastest NFLer.

You are wrong on all levels. Why not listen to what you are being told?

Where did you get all those weird ideas?

Give it up guys, SG is right on this one.

Some guy wrote a whole book on how Lance was physiologically superior to all his (doped up) peers.

Look at the circumstantial evidence. It's overwhelming. Bolt isn't the best of all time just cos he's tall... I reckon I could sell you lot anything. Suckers.

At 5-8 he's just another world class sprinter. We'd be looking at 9.7, what seperates him from them is his superior stride. How that can even be debated or argued is a mystery to me. This is so obvious it's ridiculous.

There was evidence about Armstrong being doped. There isn't any about Bolt. Overwhelming evidence, yeah right.

  wrote:

Sprintgeezer wrote:You are posting crap.

The irony. Still, keep posting. I find this entertaining. It's so funny that you think there is this magical 9.86 barrier that is the limit, everything under that is impossible cleanly. You must be one of very few to think this way. What are your limits for other events, I wonder.

You have been reduced the wearisome old trick of intentionally misrepresenting what I said.

Nobody is buying your stupid act. Everybody here already knows that's not what I said, and you have just come off looking like either an idiot, an a-hole, or just plain pathetic.

OhReallyNow--

Search the boards, loser.

It's all here

But nice try again, suggesting that there is in fact no evidence, and for the umpteenth time trying to get me to waste my time by re-posting it.

You appear to have a very limited toolkit of strategies, and you have been reduced to trying the same 2 or 3 ineffective tools over and over again, to no avail.

Good job. If you weren't such a loser in the first place, your whole world wouldn't be coming down around you, and you wouldn't feel so bad.

You don't hear all the Americans on this board defending Jeter ad nauseum, do you? Even though she has never returned a positive test. You know why? Because they are not personally invested in the myth of her being clean, as you are invested in the Bolt myth.

What a loser. Try not to self-immolate when it is eventually revealed that he used.

boubatronic wrote:

Give it up guys, SG is right on this one.

Some guy wrote a whole book on how Lance was physiologically superior to all his (doped up) peers.

Look at the circumstantial evidence. It's overwhelming. Bolt isn't the best of all time just cos he's tall... I reckon I could sell you lot anything. Suckers.

No one said Bolt is the best "just cos he's tall". He IS physiologically superior and you don't have to read a book to know that. The Lance comparison is old, tired and foolish.

boub--

They don't listen because they are so heavily personally emotionally invested in his being clean, they cannot accept the possibility that he is doped.

Even a guy like Deacon, who has explicitly stated that he is not denying the possibility, argues as if doesn't believe it possible.

The apologists love to skirt the problem, but never get around to even asking the critical questions.

Agreed: assuming Bolt's form is only as good as that of other top elites, he is physiologically superior to all past sprinters

The questions are: in what respects he is physiologically superior relative to 100m requirements, what is the extent of that superiority, and HOW is that superiority achieved?

Of course, to begin to address these questions, the physical and energetic requirements of the 100m must be understood, which is a huge stumbling block for most of the apologist posters.

Even at that, they don't exactly know the precise questions that need to be answered.

They fail to understand that Bolt doesn't just need to be better than everybody who came before him, he needs to be better to a MUCH GREATER DEGREE than any previous WR-holder has been relative to the performers who came before them.

Well, all except for Johnson, and we know how that turned out.

Oh, and according to times actually run, Bolt has been even better at being better than Johnson was.

This is classic denial, by one of the maybe 2 different apologist posters here:

"There was evidence about Armstrong being doped. There isn't any about Bolt."

You are either a complete moron, or completely delusional, if you actually believe what you write.

There is no possibility of interacting productively with someone like you.

It appears that the only one left standing who might have even the slightest grasp on reality is Deacon.

Off to his post, to see if he does, or if he doesn't.

Arguing is one thing. Trying to foreclose argument by denying reality is another thing entirely, and is the province of the insane and the desperate.