Usain Bolt was never the fastest man alive

I was never saying height is not an advantage in the 400. I believe it IS an advantage, though ideal 400m height is probably slightly lower than ideal 100m height (as ideal height decreases from sprints to marathon).

Yes, the smaller advantage in the 200 relative to the 100 does seem to indicate that Bolt would fall off even more when going to 400, but you can't necessarily use that as proof. For example, Wayde beats Johnson by .15 in 100, loses by .52 in 200, then wins by .15 in the 400.

If anything I'd say that given Johnson's 19.32, he was probably capable of 9.70 or even sub 9.7 (if he dedicated enough time to it). If Johnson runs that kind of 100 time, Bolts advantage from 100 to 200 actually increases, and we could extrapolate that his advantage over 400 could potentially be even greater than .13 seconds...

What are we trying to prove? Take the average height of the top 10 runners of all time for each distance. I am guessing that the 100-200-400-800 are similar and then it decreases for each distance above that.

I still know who wrote:

If anything I'd say that given Johnson's 19.32, he was probably capable of 9.70 or even sub 9.7..

LMAO

Hilarious thread 👍

I would guess that avg height for all-time top 10 is greater in the 200 than in the 100, using all performers, banned or not.

In the 100 you probably have Carter and Greene and Coleman, also BJ, all not tall, and all not in the 200.

In the 200 you have maybe X-man, Lewis, etc, not in the 100.

Common guys like Gatlin, Gay, Blake are in-between, in terms of height. Anomalies both ways are Powell not in the 200, and Dix not in the 100.

Also I’m talking real performances, not some of the recent fakery we have seen.

For middle distance running, there are 800/1500guys and 1500/5000. It's the same thing in sprinting; 100/200 and 200/400. Bolt was the former and Johnson the latter.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

For middle distance running, there are 800/1500guys and 1500/5000. It's the same thing in sprinting; 100/200 and 200/400. Bolt was the former and Johnson the latter.

You could have made the claim that Kerley was a 400 guy who was mediocre at 100/200 a year ago...look what happens with a year of focused training. We'll see what happens with an additional year of focus and a 1.0-2.0 m/s tailwind...

The problem with comparing all sprinters is that you don't know who was taking what, or what would have been optimal for any individual.

IF each athlete could have taken a standard cocktail that had a whole bunch of everything, so that their body could take what it needed and just flush what it didn't, then we could talk about each of them being optimized. Of course training would also need to take on such a character, but that's not likely. But the world isn't perfect.

If this condition was met, who knows. As it is, I personally believe that Bolt is the fastest, rivalled by many others like BJ using modern equipment on a modern surface, and Powell had he a stronger mind. Slowing to a 9.74 WR in Rieti is just about as insane as goofing and backward-leaning a 9.69 WR in Beijing. Just about, but not quite. Same with BJ--9.79 on a mushy track with crap 80's spikes is nuts, almost to Bolt's level. Put Lewis on some serious gear and what do you think? He made it to 9.86 on a hard track, but look at the obvious weaknesses in his race. Heck, if a biomechanical disaster like Coleman can get to 9.7-mid/high, then somebody with better capability like Lewis, Bailey, Gatlin, even Lemaitre, etc. would "easily" get to 9.6-mid/high, probably better.

Bolt was pretty good when he was at his best. His form was nice, from start to finish. Not perfect, but very, very good. Powell in particular was bitchin'. Look at the side-view of his 9.72 to get an idea of what 100m form should look like. In that one, he looked to actually have run through the line. Of course every 100m athlete will have their own optimal form, but Powell's could form a base standard.

Hayes to me is sort of like Coleman, biomechanically flawed--but geez, I would put him in with the other greats, better than Coleman.

Bailey was already 9.84 after rounds and a million false-starts, and a not-great start. He would have gone 9.7x in Atlanta had it not been for the false starts.

A lot of these guys run up against structural limits, which it appears that supps couldn't breach. Greene, Blake, and Gay with their hams, Bailey and others with achilles, Bolt with his back, etc. BJ had ham issues and took an overdose, and it worked for him. Bolt had Hans, and it worked for him. Blake apparently actually tore it off the bone, it didn't work for him.

I still give it to Bolt, but only just. 9.58 is no joke, he actually DID it. We talk about the other guys, but it takes a combo of supps, training, mentality, circumstance, and LUCK to actually get there. When you see a guy do something extraordinary not once, not twice, not three times, but FOUR times--9.58 (0.9), 9.63 (1.5), 9.69 (0.0) goofed, and 9.77 (-1.3)--the element of luck is no longer a factor. Heck, had Bolt gotten lucky--like running through the line with a +2.0 in Beijing--we would see 9.4x on the list right now.

That makes him #1 all-time. Nobody else we know of could touch that, regardless of what BJ says in interviews.

The problem with this is that being seven feet tall and moderately atheletic and running as fast as Bolt are both based on one in a billion genetics, nobody gets both.

Height, athleticism... Those sure are some important factors.

But nobody addressing the fact, that Bolt had the best running technique ever seen and it doesn't necessarily comes with height.

I'd argue that Giannis has a chance...but I obviously understand that's me judging his running ability from basketball footage, which isn't ideal.

The thing with height is that the average is increasing over time. Taller top tier track athletes are going to become more commonplace as the global average height increases. The person who takes down Bolt probably won't be quite 7 feet tall...they may not even be taller than Bolt. But I'd put good money on them being at least 6'3"-6'4".

This is actually the most most representative sporting title in the world. Though athletes may transition into a speciality as they get older and their strengths become more defined, almost every high level athlete has had a chance to test their speed. Almost every football and basketball player has had a chance to either run track, or test their speed against athletes that run track. Bolt was a freak at every age, if there ever was someone who vould claim to be the fastest ever its him. Ghys who show unnatural speed like degrasse get discovered. The fastest guy in the nfl ran track.

Bolt's dominance had everything to do with what a great responder he was to his drug regiment. The height thing is nonsense, nothing more than a argument created to explain away the fact that he was doped to the gills, as they say on this site.

It happens every time someone is so obviously doped--there needs to be a reason why that athlete is dominating their sport like never before.

Barry Bonds started breaking home run records because he suddenly got more selective at the plate, not because his biceps doubled and his head size increased by two cap sizes.

Lance Armstrong climbed so well because his cadence in the mountains was so much faster than his competitors (and the cancer changed his body type), not because his blood cell counts were epo-enhanced.

Mo Farah suddenly turned into a world beater after a mediocre career because he started doing push ups not because he embarked on the Salazar thyroid regiment.

etc.

So he's a better "responder" to all the same ish everyone else is doing. WWhat's your point? He's also a better "responder" to training and to lessons on form and to pressure and to expectations and to celebrity and to travel, and, and, and...

Bolt was the best. By a mile. He didn't do anything that a thousand other sub-10 talents haven't done.

bfefwfwef wrote:

Bolt's dominance had everything to do with what a great responder he was to his drug regiment. The height thing is nonsense, nothing more than a argument created to explain away the fact that he was doped to the gills, as they say on this site.

Must have started taking those drugs early, because up until very recently, he held every age record in the 200m from 15 years old upward.

dio wrote:

genius

except he did NOTHING to prove his claim. Only proffered that, taller people have an advantage because of less steps (which does make sense). But this is zero percent of the way to saying Bolt was never the world's fastest man.

Bolt was on pardon my take today. Said his fastest time in training was 9.9 "or maybe a 9.8". Also when they asked him if Jacobs seems sketchy he basically dodged the question and said he was just the best man on the day. Was interesting but he needs to get a better mic

Trainwreck watcher wrote:

bfefwfwef wrote:

Bolt's dominance had everything to do with what a great responder he was to his drug regiment. The height thing is nonsense, nothing more than a argument created to explain away the fact that he was doped to the gills, as they say on this site.

Must have started taking those drugs early, because up until very recently, he held every age record in the 200m from 15 years old upward.

He started on the roids when he was 5 years old. Growth Hormone at 6. Thats why he so big n tall.

habs wrote:

Bolt was on pardon my take today. Said his fastest time in training was 9.9 "or maybe a 9.8". Also when they asked him if Jacobs seems sketchy he basically dodged the question and said he was just the best man on the day. Was interesting but he needs to get a better mic

Sounds believable. Never seemed like the type to push himself unless something is on the line. I would assume that he probably didn’t run through the line in training and mostly focused on form and technique.

The height thing is not nonsense—it is what enabled him to be a great responder to the particular supps he used. Compare to BJ, or Greene: the last thing they needed was neurological stim. They weren’t 6’5”, so needed more power, to generate not only the forward acceleration, but also the rearward foot speed—so they used the appropriate supps, and that worked for them.

Each athlete is different. Bolt had certain attributes, but unlike a guy like Witherspoon, he compensated optimally for his weaknesses. Also, he had a different set of attributes than for instance does Gardiner, who is at least 6’4”.

As far as the 100m goes, he has been, so far, the best combo of raw material and workmanship ever, both physically, mentally, and culturally.

Credit where credit is due—and it is due to the system that he was under, all the way from the IOC to the IAAF to JAAA to his coaches to his family and friends. It was a huge undertaking, and it worked.