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

Sprint--

Could you say a bit more specifically about how extreme height can be a disadvantage in the 100m? How exactly, that is, does height tend to impede the speed required for the 100m, causing lower stride frequency as you say?

Lots of people talk of course about how longer legs are a serious barrier to the first 40m of a race, and that all sounds right to me, but I just wanted to hear more of your opinions on the matter.

Also of interest, which you don't mention--even excluding other sports like football and basketball, track does have its fair share of tall sprinters. The only thing is, they're just all in the 400m rather than the 100m. And it's not because they simply haven't given the 100m a try. I am willing to bet that the lion's share of those guys, if they had the choice, would rather be top-level in the 100m than the 400m; they just don't have the acceleration or top end speed the event requires, and it's hard not to think that height has something to do with that.

Shaq reportedly ran 9.90s with ease in practice with no specific sprint training. Surely he could break the WR if he trained for it, but basketball pays more than track. Presumably there is an undiscovered man on this planet (probably in africa) who is 8 feet tall and could break the 9 second barrier.

Yeah, but did he look relaxed?

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Others have dealt with the falsity of this argument before, but I though it might be worthwhile to dedicate a thread to it.

The "height apology" for Bolt goes something like this, if I may be so bold:

"He's incredibly better than any other sprinter ever has been, doped or not, because his height of 6'5" enables him to have a longer stride and therefore cover 100m faster."

What a steaming pile of crap.

Why isn't every 6'5" person taller than every 5'10" person?

Why aren't all elite sprinters super tall?

If 6'5" is good, why is the WR-holder not 6'10"?

...

Well, actually every 6' 5" person IS taller than every 5' 10" person.

lol, you actually read the post! It was just supposed to be for Whaaat?, Ilemy, and the other Jamaican wanna-be's and apologists.

Gold Star for you, my friend.

"faster"

[quote]

Bolt exhibits no trade-off, and that is the giveaway. He is the best, not only at 100m, but at every single major segment of the 100m: 0-30m, 30-70m, 70-100m.

Did you write that or were you quoting?

If so, please explain (succinctly) how he is best from 0-30.

Thank you.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Why isn't every 6'5" person taller than every 5'10" person?

Someone will already have pointed this out by the time I successfully post this, but this question is incorrect. Every 6'5" person IS taller than every 5'10" person.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

lol, you actually read the post! It was just supposed to be for Whaaat?, Ilemy, and the other Jamaican wanna-be's and apologists.

Gold Star for you, my friend.

"faster"

Dude, I enjoy your posts. Keep it up.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

There are lots of people who are 6'5" and yet the best sprinters, other than Bolt, are consistently much shorter. Hence Bolt must be succeeding despite his height, not because of it.

Protect Track and Field at all costs! I said all costs dammit even if it costs us Track and Field!

I actually do think Bolt's height is the reason he is so fast. But the only way it works is because he is extraordinarily strong and has an incredible ability to avoid injury for a man his size.

Most people with Bolt's large frame wouldn't survive the training needed for top-level sprinting.

That's where the PEDs come in. That's where he gets the strength. He could have spent his career as a 19.8-20.0 200 guy. But he would not have lasted long. And certainly less as a sub-10 100m man.

With the PEDs he can dominate both and has only missed part of one season with injury.

Geez - have you been drinking? I hope Bolt 'goes down' soon or this will eat you up man.

Sprintgeezer, your argument in severely flawed.

Nobody claims that being 6'5 is what makes Bolt fast.

"Why isn't the WR holder 6'10?" Nobody would argue that height alone makes you fast. The length of one's levers is ONE FACTOR out of probably dozens that, IN COMBINATION, determine how fast you run.

Bolt's exceptional leg length is ONE OF THE FACTORS that contribute to his superiority. It draws attention because it is obviously visible. We can't see the quality of his motor cortex, his proportion of fast-twitch fibers or the mounting points of his tendons. All we know us that the total sum of his physical attributes, including his leg length, make him the fastest man in the world.

All other things being equal, longer legs are an advantage. The reason the WR holder isn't 6'10 is that it's astronomically unlikely for a man of that height to also inherit all the other traits required to sprint at a world-class level. Being 6'10 is extremely unlikely, having a world class nervous system is extremely unlikely, having long muscle bellies throughout your body is extremely unlikely, having an extremely high percentage of white muscle fibers is extremely unlikely, having high mounting points is extremely unlikely, and having ALL OF THOSE TRAITS AT THE SAME TIME is extremely, extremely, extremely, extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely, and for such an unlikely individual to be born in a time frame and context that would make it possible for him to discover track and field, train for it and compete in modern organized sport is so mind-bogglingly unlikely that it just hasn't happened yet. That doesn't mean it can't.

fink le

RE: But...but...but...Bolt is 6'5"!!! 8/2/2013 4:19PM - in reply to spankles Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

Geez - have you been drinking? I hope Bolt 'goes down' soon or this will eat you up man.

he's back on the crack pipe..

Another apologist.

Any of you ever play pickup football growing up? It is always the short speedy ones that do the most damage. You never hear kids say "he's tall so he's going to be too fast for us"...

Now all of a sudden height is an attribute that is complimentary to speed? 100% bullsh-t.

don knots wrote:

Shaq reportedly ran 9.90s with ease in practice with no specific sprint training. Surely he could break the WR if he trained for it, but basketball pays more than track. Presumably there is an undiscovered man on this planet (probably in africa) who is 8 feet tall and could break the 9 second barrier.

I would have said that this was BS, but I read on another thread that Kenenisa Bekele did a 360 tomahawk dunk from the free-throw line. In light of that, this seems credible.

hey sprintgeezer

i know where you copying and pasting all this stuff from

you reading another forum and then puke it all up here in your threads...

There are PLENTY of 6'5" guys around the world, but only one 6'5" sprint WR-holder. Selection effect? Bull. Sure lots of guys get diverted into basketball, football, soccer, cricket, etc.--but how many of them actually play those things meaningfully after, say, age 20, or after US college age? (Remember the world is a very big place, much bigger than NCAA basketball).

Hardly any. Only a tiny handful. What happens to the rest of the guys who wash out, and can't be one of the couple of 100 in the majors? Why don't they sprint?

Because they suck at it, because just because you are tall does not mean you are a good sprinter--in fact, it does mean that you have certain weaknesses that tend to make you a worse sprinter, especially in the 100m.

No, you're wrong here - they don't sprint because they never did sprint.

You might have extreme sprinting talent, and you're also 6'6, so obviously you get diverted to basketball and play that through high school and maybe college... but you aren't good enough to get into the NBA. So what are you going to do, pick up a sprint career at the age of 19 or 23? OF COURSE NOT. It doesn't work like that. Not to mention you haven't been training the last 8 years, you just don't ever think to try.