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

Lurker wrote:

They're out of their minds wrote:

That's the reason for the fact that whenever you look at the World's Overall Ranking, it's a sprinter who's on top.

Current #1s: Armand Duplantis + Sifan Hassan

b-but bbut butt butt buuut but pole vault clearly needs fast twitch quality, and 1500s are run faster than many normies can sprint!!

The reason that Dolt is such an outlier is because he is completely fake.

What I mean is that without the sauce, he would either be running 10.1, or more likely not running at all.

Sauce helps healing. Dolt has problems in addition to the giant problem of sprinting at 6’5”, all of which work together to prevent him from sprinting at the highest level cleanly.

Yes he won before the age of 16. How? Because he was a bit shorter, and a good bit lighter. 16 or 17 was likely his peak, before he filled out. As a youth, he was a phenomenal young clean talent. As an adult, he was a regrettably unnatural industrial entertainment product.

Try to think of a distance guy who was also phenomenal as a middle teen, but who burned out. Now, imagine that guy had found just the thing to cure his ills, and knew it was the highest-grade stuff, administered and monitored by doctors, and had the blessing of the highest echelons of power.

Who would it be, and what would be his time? THAT is what you’re looking at when you see Dolt. Someone who shouldn’t even have been running because his body couldn’t handle it naturally.

Oh and why Dolt and not before? New cocktail including speed peptide, boosts neurological performance, which can be the key for tall guys.

Ans where NFL/NBA players etc are concerned, there is every reason to believe that another potential Dolt has been or still is among them. Dolt came at exactly the right time for all the factors to come together, from a country that has sprinting as its national identity, along with drugs, alcohol, violence, and corruption. Luckily for sprinting, he had no talent for skill sports like cricket.

Being in the right place at the right time is why we see such phenomenal NFL/NBA talent, taking advantage in their respective sports of all the same factors as did Dolt. I know phenomenal guys who went as far as they could in the NFL system cleanly, until they got thrown in with the Dolt class.

There IS a whole “other level”, the “perfect storm”. There are a few Dolts in each big-money pro sport, the difference being that there is also some skill required...but in basketball and football, we have increasingly frequently been seeing just raw athleticism, at the expense of skill like we saw in the 80’s and maybe 90’s. Where is Magic? Nash? Forget McGwire, Bonds, Sosa—where are the Ichiros?

this cannot be real ??

The Numbers wrote:

Bolt is probably the most drug tested individual on the planet. He comes from a country that is known for its sprinting talent, has a great build and quite obviously has a lot of talent. Why is it so hard to believe that he hasn't taken drugs? The way i see it, you're just jealous and projecting your own insecurities.

maybe because most of the top 10 all time performers behind him got caught and were not able to run 0.1 second behind him??

Because 9.58 clean would mean what? 9.40 on drugs or even faster XD.

Wake up man. Every WR holder was on drugs last 30years or even more.

I hope you are trolling.

I think the IAAF tables have some benefits as well as some drawbacks. Obviously, I don't agree that 9.58 is equivalent to a 12:21 or whatever. But they have attempted to provide a statistical analysis of the relevant quality of different performances across events.

However, consider this:

Bolts WR compared to the 2nd fastest ever time run by someone else:

9.58/9.69 = 0.9886

0.9886 x 12:37 = 12:28.

So 9.58 is so far ahead of the rest that it would quite literally be equivalent to someone running sub 12:30 in the 5k.

most got caught well before or years after pr'ing though, and in the case of blake (fastest 200m ever run ruined by bad reaction time) world antidoping gave him the all clear cause it wasn't serious, but jamaica insisted on a ban

and as others said, if an athlete found a way to completely max out by somehow running a perfect race to the absolute limit 12:2x is only slightly more than 1% improvement on the current wr ran in a regular shmegular race

You have any facts to support that statement? The MOST drug tested individual on the planet?Was this also during the time when they were basically under WADA audit because drug testing on the island (where Usain Bolt lived and trained) was basically non-existent and they had what 1 out of competition test total in the 5 months prior to the London Olympics?

It's so funny because I know your type - that response you gave is so blueprint for the person I literally described. So nice one.

fchj2 wrote:

seasoned ranker wrote:

What we are trying to tell you that he is statistically a greater outlier than Komen, Bekele, Geb and El G.

Or, Komen, Bekele, Geb, and El G are the outliers, as much so as Bolt.

Please re-read the underlined portion.

fchj2 wrote:

malmo wrote:

Perhaps you don't have any idea what it takes to run 9.58?

Yeah, you’re right. Could it be that distance running is more competitive than the sprints and sees a lot more talent? Did they work that into the equation?

The fact is Komen, Bekele, Geb, El G are every bit the athlete that Bolt was and I find it strange that so many don’t agree.

A 12:21 5k!? Get real. You’re not getting any more talented than the names I mentioned above. Try telling Bekele that his 5 wr is 16 seconds off. What’s ironic is this pretty much solidifies that the 100 record was enhanced.

Distance running is a sport with absolute garbage talent levels compared to sprinting. Have you even remotely seen the difference in fandom that the two events draws?

seasoned ranker wrote:

fchj2 wrote:

Or, Komen, Bekele, Geb, and El G are the outliers, as much so as Bolt.

Please re-read the underlined portion.

The underline function didn't work. Oh well. You missed the word "statistically".

Not all world records are equal.

Seyta wrote:

fchj2 wrote:

Yeah, you’re right. Could it be that distance running is more competitive than the sprints and sees a lot more talent? Did they work that into the equation?

The fact is Komen, Bekele, Geb, El G are every bit the athlete that Bolt was and I find it strange that so many don’t agree.

A 12:21 5k!? Get real. You’re not getting any more talented than the names I mentioned above. Try telling Bekele that his 5 wr is 16 seconds off. What’s ironic is this pretty much solidifies that the 100 record was enhanced.

Distance running is a sport with absolute garbage talent levels compared to sprinting. Have you even remotely seen the difference in fandom that the two events draws?

Uh, no. It's different kinds of talent compared to the sprint. 9.58 is rated so high because 1) the objective of running events is to see how fast you can go, and whats faster than the 100m? 2) The 100m is the most frequently raced event of them all. 3) Imagine if there was no 1500/mile/steeplechase/5000/. The only events above 800m would be 3000m and 10000. Komen is a special talent, and his 3000 WR is a thing of beauty, but don't you think that the 3000m would be much faster than 7:20? What if the 10,000m was paying as much as marathons? How much faster would the WR be?

Distance experiences this on a far greater level than sprinting ever would, simply because of what it is. Distance runners are, very bluntly, pulled away simply because nobody likes distance. The Diamond League cut out the 10000m, and is effectively cutting out the 5000m and 3000m Steeple. Why? Because nobody even likes watching it, let alone competing in it.

In the 100+ year history of the Olympics, the top sprinters have always been celebrated FAR more than distance runners. Just look at the high school level. A top sprinter competes usually because he's an extremely good athlete who happens to be an exceptional sprinter. If he's THAT good at sprinting, then he continues. A distance athlete usually competes because he's objectively bad at almost every other sport.

For example, Christian Coleman, Marvin Bracy, and Trayvon Bromell were all varsity or collegiate Football Players. Football season at the high school level has ZERO overlap with track, so Football coaches traditionally send a huge mass of their athletes to the track team so they maintain fitness. The absolute best will actually stay in track. Contrast this with some prominent distance athletes. Jim Ryun, a fantastic middle-distance athlete, openly admits that he became a distance athlete because he was absolutely terrible at everything else. Prefontaine, probably the US's best-known distance athlete, wanted to be a football player, but was too short. Most top distance athletes don't even have an athletic history outside of distance running. They were athletically garbage, and ended up in a no-cut sport that everyone hates.

ex-runner wrote:

However, consider this:

Bolts WR compared to the 2nd fastest ever time run by someone else:

9.58/9.69 = 0.9886

0.9886 x 12:37 = 12:28.

.

I have no idea what your math is supposed to prove.? The 2nd fastest 5000 is 12:39.36, not 12:37. If you multiply 0.9886 by 12:39.36 you get 12:30.70. But I'm not even sure why you think a linear comparison of two completely different events with completely different energy systems is valid?

A proper statistical model in a peer-reviewed academic journal says 9.58 is equivalent to 7:20.99 and 12:35.42 (see page 12):

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.5924.pdf

Why is it irrelevant? Relay splits are rather inaccurate though

Kev2 wrote:

Why is it irrelevant? Relay splits are rather inaccurate though

Because it is a different event.

You can get just as accurate 4x100m splits as you can get the split of the 2nd half of a 200m.