Usain Bolt was never the fastest man alive

coach wrote:

sat and didnt kick wrote:

isn't it true that if you are at least 7' tall, male, born in the US, and between 20-40, there is a 40% chance you are presently in the NBA

There are fewer than 500 NBA players and with all the international bigs in the NBA I doubt that is true.

Only something like 3% of Americans are over 6'2". It's estimated that there are less than 3000 people over 7' tall on the planet. Of course there's only 15 players listed at 7' or more and most them aren't American and most of them probably aren't actually 7' tall.

Blahbleheh wrote:

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

guy with PhD wrote:

That is incorrect. With increasing height, the change in surface area is smaller than the change in body mass.

So taller runners have a relatively lower SA/MASS ratio.

You may have a PhD, but you're not very bright. That's what he said.

You can say this about literally anything in the world.

Is Ronnie the best snooker player or is there some random guy in Guernsey or Ghana who would be better with training?

If you got everyone on the planet to practice bowling from their teens, could there be a better spinner than Warney?

The popularity of a sport globally is a good indication on the chances of this. Millions of kids play football, cricket, running and cycling. Chances are Bolt, Messi and Froome are genuinely the best. Not as many kids play Basket Ball, Grid Iron or Table Tennis... so chances are the best in those sports- whoever they may be - are not the best in the world.

coach wrote:

sat and didnt kick wrote:

isn't it true that if you are at least 7' tall, male, born in the US, and between 20-40, there is a 40% chance you are presently in the NBA

There are fewer than 500 NBA players and with all the international bigs in the NBA I doubt that is true.

Bottom line...

Basketball is a height competition that favors tall people who can also pass and shoot a basketball.

Stop it.

Next you'll be claiming Shaq would win the indoor 60 m

He'd only take 4 steps

The relationship between height and SA/MASS does not depend on sprinting/distance running specialization… it holds true either way…

I was just correcting the false assumption that was shared in regards to the relationship between height and SA/MASS…the second part was just a bonus… you’re welcome

Wrong. He'd be an athletic freak with a genius court IQ, just seven inches shorter. Basically Chris Paul + Russell Westbrook. That's a crazy bad take right there.

guy with PhD wrote:

The relationship between height and SA/MASS does not depend on sprinting/distance running specialization… it holds true either way…

I was just correcting the false assumption that was shared in regards to the relationship between height and SA/MASS…the second part was just a bonus… you’re welcome

It gives the tall runner an aerodynamic advantage and the small runner a heat dissipation advantage.

But even those are oversimplifications.

Bolt surprised everyone when we discovered he had a very good start. The rest is history.

guy with PhD wrote:

The relationship between height and SA/MASS does not depend on sprinting/distance running specialization… it holds true either way…

I was just correcting the false assumption that was shared in regards to the relationship between height and SA/MASS…the second part was just a bonus… you’re welcome

Just state you do not know instead of doubling down on surface area / mass.

Go back and read my original post on this thread. Shorter to average height sprinters usually have BOTH superior neuromuscular coordination and superior strength to weight ratio to taller sprinters thus often superior to 50m. The superior energy expended by shorter sprinters eventually often gives way at (80 to 90)m in100m dash. All or nearly all sprinters are deaccelerating over final 15 metres. Shorter sprinters often are deaccelerating more significantly over final 15m. We do not, have not and will not see 7 footers dominating sprints. NOTHING TO DO WITH HEAT DISSIPATION. Tall men usually have inferior neuromuscular coordination to shorter or average height men and taller men most often have inferior strength to weight ratio, if were are comparing world class athletes to world class athletes. A 375 pound Shaq at 30 percent body fat is not going to be as strong as a 6'6" 375 N.F.L. lineman at 20% body fat.

jabouko wrote:

Lets Run Snobs Have No Self Awareness wrote:

Well that's not true at all. If Lebron James was 6'2" he couldn't make an NBA roster. The dude can't really shoot very well at all.

Success in basketball is predicated on a combination of HEIGHT and ball handling. If you are tall enough it doesn't matter how well you can handle the ball. (see 99% of the over 7' NBA players who look like new born deer on ice when they move) If you can handle the ball well enough it doesn't matter how tall you are. (see Isaiah Thomas, JJ Barea, etc)

Wrong. He'd be an athletic freak with a genius court IQ, just seven inches shorter. Basically Chris Paul + Russell Westbrook. That's a crazy bad take right there.

If James is more than 3 feet from the basket his FG % drops to sub 40. There wouldn't be much market for a point guard who can't shoot even a little bit.

Jake S wrote:

You can say this about literally anything in the world.

Is Ronnie the best snooker player or is there some random guy in Guernsey or Ghana who would be better with training?

If you got everyone on the planet to practice bowling from their teens, could there be a better spinner than Warney?

The popularity of a sport globally is a good indication on the chances of this. Millions of kids play football, cricket, running and cycling. Chances are Bolt, Messi and Froome are genuinely the best. Not as many kids play Basket Ball, Grid Iron or Table Tennis... so chances are the best in those sports- whoever they may be - are not the best in the world.

.....At the young age of 22, Tadej Pogacar has already displaced Froome on your "genuinely the best" list.

Thinking about NFL Wide Receivers vs NBA Point Guards/Shooting Guards. Surely the WRs are faster and probably were in high school.

Lets Run Snobs Have No Self Awareness wrote:

jabouko wrote:

Wrong. He'd be an athletic freak with a genius court IQ, just seven inches shorter. Basically Chris Paul + Russell Westbrook. That's a crazy bad take right there.

If James is more than 3 feet from the basket his FG % drops to sub 40. There wouldn't be much market for a point guard who can't shoot even a little bit.

You've evidently never actually watched LeBron play basketball, let alone looked at a stat sheet. He's a career 35% 3-point shooter so I'm pretty sure he shoots quite a bit better than 40% from between 3 and 23 feet from the basket.

shirley wrote:

Thinking about NFL Wide Receivers vs NBA Point Guards/Shooting Guards. Surely the WRs are faster and probably were in high school.

I don't disagree. Let's tie this in with greater detail in regard to characteristics of two groups stated and most probable reasons why N.F.L. receivers are faster sprinters than N.B.A. guards.

Over the past fifty or so years, it seems as if both N.F.L. receivers and N.B.A. guards are getting taller. I estimate average height of N.F.L. receivers currently in uniform, about 6'1 1/2". I estimate the height of N.B.A. guards, app. 6'4 1/2". I would give a slight edge in neuromuscular coordination to N.B.A. guards, but neuromuscular coordination necessary for sprinting, an edge to N.F.L receivers. I am certain with so much weight lifting by receivers from their D-1 college days, N.F.L. receivers have a superior strength to weight ratio. Due to superior strength to weight ratio of average N.F.L. receivers compared to average N.B.A. guards, N.F.L. receivers more than likely are faster sprinters than N.B.A. guards on average.

In regard to your statement that most Am. football receivers were most likely faster sprinters than basketball guards in high school, most likely true. Receivers most likely had a superior strength to weight ratio in high school and most likely superior neuromuscular coordination for sprinting in high school compared to high school basketball guards on average.

JewettCutHimOff wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:van Niekerk, who happens to hold the 400WR, is 6'0". Michael Johnson is 6'1" and held the 200WR for several years. For what it's worth, Bekele is 5'5".

Is this supposed to disprove my statement that height helps in the 400m? Honestly I googled Wayde thinking he was shorter, which would be evidence to the contrary, but it turns out he's taller than I thought. Same with Michael Johnson...for some reason I thought they were both maybe 5'10" or 5'11".

Also, we all know Bolt would have the 400 record as well if he wasn't a p***y.

This is "I still know who" by the way...switched computers, won't let me use that name anymore.

My pointing out that Wayde is only 6' doesn't contradict your claim that height is a big advantage in the 400? You seem to be saying height is not an advantage after 6'. Six foot is about average for American males so height is obviously not an advantage in the 400.

Then you claim the 6'5" Bolt could have had the 400 WR, so I guess being taller than 6' really is an advantage. Just because Bolt has long legs doesn't mean his rocket fuel, high-twitch muscles are going to be agreeable to 400m. Even if Michael Johnson's 10.09 PR was a little soft, Bolt could have beaten him by at least. 3 seconds. By 200m, Johnson had cut the gap to .12 and would have closed it, and then some, by 400m. Johnson ran 43.18 and I don't believe Bolt could have broken 43.50.

I Win wrote:

Lets Run Snobs Have No Self Awareness wrote:

If James is more than 3 feet from the basket his FG % drops to sub 40. There wouldn't be much market for a point guard who can't shoot even a little bit.

You've evidently never actually watched LeBron play basketball, let alone looked at a stat sheet. He's a career 35% 3-point shooter so I'm pretty sure he shoots quite a bit better than 40% from between 3 and 23 feet from the basket.

You know they keep track of all these stats right? It doesn't matter what you're "sure" about it matters what reality is...

There’s not a stat for that. There’s a stat for 3-point shooting and overall field goal percentage.

Andre De grasse. 5'10". End of thread.

UltraDude wrote:

shorter stride lengths have less vertical motion and are therefore more efficient.

Why would that be more efficient? The shorter sprinter has higher turnover and thus more footstrikes. Footstrike is the only time braking force occurs.