Many people with no advanced college education do not understand the difference between quick and fast. If you've had tons of physics classes like I've had, you know there is a huge difference.
Fast- this refers to the "overall" pace of an object from a to b, and usually requires very little turnover ratio because the object is large. Like a large ball that is rolling or a runner with very long legs. They arent putting out as much effort because each roll of the ball or each stride that is thrown is covering more distance. We could debate all day that taller runners are less aerodynamic and therefore more energy is used, but at the end of the day tall runners and larger rolling balls have a PHYSIOLOGICAL advantage. If you look at my history, I have always mentally DESPISED runners who are tall and lanky and over glorified. Everyone from craig mottram to jim ryun to ryan hall, I despise and loathe all of them because I feel they are over privileged because of their size and are therefore less talented. The only exception being paul tergat. These runners are fast. But they are absolutely not quick. From a scientific standpoint, they are, indeed, less talented.
Quick- in science, being quick refers to an extremely fast turnover ratio of a small object, such as a small ball or runner with short legs. This object is, technically, moving much faster to the naked eye. All energy system, absent of any entropy, are all far more exhausted and have a higher volume of usage than the big overprivledged ball such as jim ryun. Objects that are quick, they rely on more energy and more exhaustion and more talent in order to get from point a to point b. They are simply using all of their system at a higher volume, and at a much more "pronto" rate of speed. Everything about being quick is superior to athletes or other objects who are just fast. Perfect examples of quick runners- boaz cheboywo (where has he been lately), alan webb, and lionel manzano.
Any which way you look at it, you cant deny the scientific aspects that quick runners are far superior to runners that are fast. Fast runners are inferior and obsolete.
Now, you are more than welcome to give your .02, but we all know it will be extremely biased, based on whether you view yourself as being quick or fast. But hey. That's ok! That's all part of identity and psychology, right? Just dont forget to include some sort of science in yourrebuttal, which I'm sure you will completely omit or skew in order to reflect your own viewpoint of speed.
Quick runners > fast runners
Mentality > physicality
- the430miler
Head track coach and assistant cc coach
University in San Antonio