Usain Bolt was never the fastest man alive

genius

Track and road races will never get the top athletes. Bolt has a NW of $90 million. Gatlin has a NW of $3. Kipchoge is $3 million.

Lebron is $850 million. Durant is $600 million.

Interestingly, there is a distance where height becomes less of an advantage and even a disadvantage. Kipchoge is 5'6". Rupp is 5'11". Very few elite marathoners are over 6 feet. There are physiological reasons why taller runners are at a disadvantage in the marathon. IIRC, it has to do with heat dispersion.

I'd imagine the smaller you are the more surface area per mass you have.

Welcome back, Matt London.

Success in basketball is predicated on skills particular to putting a ball inside a hoop, not athleticism. Is the NBA bankrupt when it comes to athleticism? No. But you are mistaken if you think any of the top NBA players have WR breaking potential in the sprints just because theyre tall.

And the distance where height is the biggest advantage is the 400m, not the 100m.

Before 2012 Summer Olympics, I charted heights of all male Olympic medalists in all running events including 110mH, 400mH & 3000mSC. I only charted males because in many events, female Olympians were too low of sample number. If I recall, about 6' was average height of 100m gold medalists going back to 1896. If I recall, about 5'7" average gold medalist height for Marathon.

Going back to 1896, 100m dash does have tallest Olympic medalists. Heights gradually decreased to Marathon if I did not include 110mH, 400mH and 3000mSC.

Sixty-metre dash is a bit different. The tallest men often do not have the best start. Average size men have done well at 60 yard/60m dash.

OozmaKappa wrote:

Success in basketball is predicated on skills particular to putting a ball inside a hoop, not athleticism. Is the NBA bankrupt when it comes to athleticism? No. But you are mistaken if you think any of the top NBA players have WR breaking potential in the sprints just because theyre tall.

And the distance where height is the biggest advantage is the 400m, not the 100m.

It´s always funny when Americans think that participants in the top American sports are the greatest athletes on the planet.

well,, wrote:

OozmaKappa wrote:

Success in basketball is predicated on skills particular to putting a ball inside a hoop, not athleticism. Is the NBA bankrupt when it comes to athleticism? No. But you are mistaken if you think any of the top NBA players have WR breaking potential in the sprints just because theyre tall.

And the distance where height is the biggest advantage is the 400m, not the 100m.

It´s always funny when Americans think that participants in the top American sports are the greatest athletes on the planet.

Most Americans don't think Kevin Durant would be faster than Usain Bolt in any scenario with any amount of training.

fisky wrote:

Track and road races will never get the top athletes. Bolt has a NW of $90 million. Gatlin has a NW of $3. Kipchoge is $3 million.

Lebron is $850 million. Durant is $600 million.

Interestingly, there is a distance where height becomes less of an advantage and even a disadvantage. Kipchoge is 5'6". Rupp is 5'11". Very few elite marathoners are over 6 feet. There are physiological reasons why taller runners are at a disadvantage in the marathon. IIRC, it has to do with heat dispersion.

I'm not sure the point you're trying to make. LeBron and Durant wouldn't be good sprinters and I doubt if Bolt and Gatlin have the natural ability to play in the NBA. Not too many athletes have ability in multiple sports where they can choose the gig with the highest pay.

As to the OP's comments, Bolt is a genetic freak that has both long legs and incredible turnover. Him being tall doesn't mean there are a bunch of 7' guys in the NBA that could beat him if they focused on sprinting.

London calling. wrote:

Welcome back, Matt London.

+1, I thought the same when I read his post

Many NBA players ran HS track. You can find a lot of profiles on athletic.net for guys who were drafted in the last 6 years or so.

A typical track profile for an NBA player is a jumper that might qualify for states but definitely not win, and sprint times that probably wouldn't even score at a conference meet.

Do the same exercise for the NFL and you'll see a dozen sub-11's.

You're arguing from the wrong side. If anything, Bolt being tall and having the turnover he has is the remarkable thing. Silly to argue that taller athletes, w/training, could compete with or even better Bolt. I really don't think you understand how fast 9.59 really is.

I'm really not trying to claim that Durant or Giannis specifically would be able to lower the WR. My thread title was a little bit attention seeking.

I'm just saying that for someone to take down Bolt, they're going to need to at least compete with his crazy stride length. You can only get your turnover to a certain point before you're maxed out (Coleman).

We've never seen a nearly 7 foot tall athlete go all in on professional sprint training. Knighton is 6'3 and look at what he's doing at 17 years old...his height/stride length advantage is playing a big part in that.

I think you would all be extremely surprised if Giannis took 1-2 years with a pro sprinting coach and dedicated his life to it.

OozmaKappa wrote:

And the distance where height is the biggest advantage is the 400m, not the 100m.

I do agree that height is a big advantage in the 400m as well, but I think time will show that it helps just as much in the shorter sprints. Like I was trying to argue in part of my post, most tall athletes are not pushed in the direction of short sprints.

Blahbleheh wrote:

I'd imagine the smaller you are the more surface area per mass you have.

Correct. And so they have an aerodynamic disadvatage compared to Bolt.

I still know who wrote:

OozmaKappa wrote:

And the distance where height is the biggest advantage is the 400m, not the 100m.

I do agree that height is a big advantage in the 400m as well, but I think time will show that it helps just as much in the shorter sprints. Like I was trying to argue in part of my post, most tall athletes are not pushed in the direction of short sprints.

Very few HS kids who go out for track team choose the 400, it chooses them. Many of the basketball players who joined my team wanted to do the short sprints or field events.

Also the NBA holds a combine and tests its prospective players in short explosive sprints. I dont think it's that they're not exposed or pushed into short sprints, perhaps they're not strong enough and too lanky

I still know who wrote:

I'm really not trying to claim that Durant or Giannis specifically would be able to lower the WR. My thread title was a little bit attention seeking.

I'm just saying that for someone to take down Bolt, they're going to need to at least compete with his crazy stride length. You can only get your turnover to a certain point before you're maxed out (Coleman).

We've never seen a nearly 7 foot tall athlete go all in on professional sprint training. Knighton is 6'3 and look at what he's doing at 17 years old...his height/stride length advantage is playing a big part in that.

I think you would all be extremely surprised if Giannis took 1-2 years with a pro sprinting coach and dedicated his life to it.

What makes you think that Giannis would have the necessary combination of explosive acceleration and neurological coordination necessary to unfurl his 7 foot frame out of the blocks efficiently enough to keep up with the best sprinters in the world?

A basketball court is less than 30 metres in length and I’ve never seen a basketball player move quickly enough across the court in a straight line to think “hmm, he might have made a good sprinter”. Maybe Lebron on a chase down block? But who's to say he’d have the necessary top end speed and speed endurance?

Funnily enough, isn't the best NBA athlete we've ever heard of on the track 5'9" Nate Freaking Robinson?

Ben Johnson. You can't tell me he didn't blast one in training that nobody has touched.