Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bolt in NYT predicts 9.4

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bolt in NYT predicts 9.4

    http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/04/ ... -bolt.html

  • #2
    Let's get to 9.68 first, shall we, Usain? :roll:

    I like that he's confident, and I especially like that he's calling himself out in what could be an off-year (year after the OG is traditionally down), but 9.4x? If and only if he worked very, very hard for 3 more years, could he have a shot at that in the lead-up to London, but that's still a tall order, even for the GOAT-to-be of the 100.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Bolt in NYT predicts 9.4

      Originally posted by ed gee
      http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/04/26/sports/sports-us-athletics-bolt.html
      9.4 ?!!! The air in Boston can make you lightheaded. I do not think 9.4 is possible. Is that 9.4 seconds? Naw - I don't see that in the realm of the possible.
      The Social News Site For T&F - http://runzoom.com

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Bolt in NYT predicts 9.4

        With Bolt it's hard to say. Have we seen a sprinter like him before? So tall, so strong. Great start and runs through the tape, wind behind. Who knows?

        Comment


        • #5
          Too much ganja . . .

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by bad hammy
            Too much ganja . . .
            This is slanderous :shock: I'm sure he knows when to stop. :P

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Daisy
              Originally posted by bad hammy
              Too much ganja . . .
              This is slanderous :shock:
              Hardly. If he smoked weed I would admire him all the more. And he has already admitted he did in his misspent youth.

              Comment


              • #8
                [quote=bad hammy]
                Originally posted by Daisy
                Originally posted by "bad hammy":1p5ej420
                Too much ganja . . .
                This is slanderous :shock:
                Hardly. If he smoked weed I would admire him all the more. And he has already admitted he did in his misspent youth.[/quote:1p5ej420]

                That's interesting but Puma and IAAF's opinions carry a bit more weight
                The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

                Comment


                • #9
                  In perfect conditions, I think it is VERY very very possible.

                  Here's why:

                  Usain Bolt ran a 9.77 into a 1.3m/s with a 0.22 reaction time in septermber of last year.

                  He has already had a 0.12 reaction time in one of his races, so we know that he is capable of this reaction time occasionally in the future, given that he has done it before.

                  So, if he had had a 0.12 reaction time instead of a 0.22 reaction time, that would have already dropped his time from a 9.77 down to a 9.67 in that race.

                  Next we look at the wind. It was a 1.3m/s headwind. If it had been a 2.0m/s tailwind his time would have dropped from a 9.67 (with the .12 reaction time) all the way down to a 9.50 flat.

                  However, this does not take into account the fact that it was cold and raining during that race. Taking that into account, he easily could have run another one or two hundredths faster still, which would be in the very high 9.4's.

                  So yes, in optimal conditions, he was capable of running very high 9.4's last season.

                  So as long as he isn't slower than he was last season (he might be, or he might not be, we won't know till we find out, obviously), then yes, if the conditions are just right, and he snaps off a good reaction time, he will run a high 9.4 or better, in my opinion.

                  It's just math.


                  However, if the conditions aren't perfect, or he is injured, or he is slower than last season, then no, it will not happen, and he will end up with a low or mid 9.5 instead. Which is much more likely, since optimal conditions are rare, and he looks like he might be a little slower this season than last, if the rumors about him slacking are true.

                  I can't wait for him to start running in some big races this season though, so we can figure it out the fun way (by watching it happen or not happen with our eyeballs and stuff!!!)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Atheist
                    However, if the conditions aren't perfect, or he is injured, or he is slower than last season, then no, it will not happen, and he will end up with a low or mid 9.5 instead. Which is much more likely.
                    Only if you're comparing a 1% likelihood to, say, a 4% likelihood would it be much more likely. :P

                    Do you really expect him to run 9.50–9.55 this year?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      [quote=Half Miler]
                      Originally posted by "The Atheist":2qx8qvoa
                      However, if the conditions aren't perfect, or he is injured, or he is slower than last season, then no, it will not happen, and he will end up with a low or mid 9.5 instead. Which is much more likely.
                      Only if you're comparing a 1% likelihood to, say, a 4% likelihood would it be much more likely. :P

                      Do you really expect him to run 9.50–9.55 this year?[/quote:2qx8qvoa]

                      If he is exactly as fast as he was last season, then yes.

                      If he is slower than last season, then no.

                      If he is faster than last season, then lower than that.



                      Here's why:

                      Instead of giving Bolt perfectly optimal conditions in his 9.77 Brussels race, which basically never happens, let's just give him "decent" but not "great" and certainly not "perfect" conditions, and see what his time comes down to in that race:


                      Ok, so he had a .22 reaction time, and a 1.3m/s headwind in that race

                      So instead, let's give him a .16 reaction time (this is neither a good reaction time for him, nor a bad reaction time for him, rather, just decent)

                      And let's give him a 1.0m/s tailwind. Again, this is neither a good tailwind nor a bad one, just decent.

                      What would his time be?

                      Well, dropping the reaction time from .22 to .16 automatically shaves .06 off his time, so now we are at 9.71 into a 1.3m/s headwind

                      and switching the 1.3m/s headwind to a 1.0m/s tailwind brings the time down to a 9.59

                      However, we must note that this 9.59 is still in the cold, in the rain, on a soaking wet track.

                      All we did was change his reaction time from what was, I believe, his very worst reaction time that he has ever had at an absurd .22 seconds, down to a .16 reaction time, which seems to be right around his most typical reaction time if you average all his reaction times out, and we switched the terrible 1.3m/s headwind into a fairly typical 1.0m/s tailwind, since you will find a 1m/s tailwind or better in probably at least one or two races each season, so it is reasonable.

                      We did not change the cold and the rain and the wet track to warm and not raining and a dry track.

                      And we did not give him anywhere near optimal conditions, rather, just normal very reasonable conditions that happen all the time.

                      And this still would have converted his 9.77 down to 9.59.

                      If the weather had been good, it gets a little lower even.

                      Still seems unreasonable that he could have easily run a mid 9.5 at the end of last season, if the conditions hadn't been so crappy?

                      No... no it doesn't. Not when you actually crunch the numbers, instead of going "Oh my GOSH!!!!! 9.5x, that's totally like wow what the hell no wayyyy!!!! Neverrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!" and so forth.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Atheist
                        Ok, so he had a .22 reaction time, and a 1.3m/s headwind in that race
                        So far, so good. However, recall, if you will, the last time you used this example.

                        So instead, let's give him a .16 reaction time (this is neither a good reaction time for him, nor a bad reaction time for him, rather, just decent)
                        Ok.

                        And let's give him a 1.0m/s tailwind. Again, this is neither a good tailwind nor a bad one, just decent.
                        Sure, it's feasible.

                        What would his time be?
                        9,76 corrected. Well, you did ask nicely ;-)

                        Well, dropping the reaction time from .22 to .16 automatically shaves .06 off his time, so now we are at 9.71 into a 1.3m/s headwind

                        and switching the 1.3m/s headwind to a 1.0m/s tailwind brings the time down to a 9.59.
                        No, it would be 9,81 corrected. You were better off leaving him at 9,71 (-1,3 m/s) (9,63 corrected).



                        God didn't send this: http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/wind/index.html , but it sure makes a lot of sense on these boards.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I can imagine that Bolt NEVER had this in mind, but 9,4+0,24 = 9,64 ;-). On the fine-line technicality, it's possible Bolt does believe he can run "9,4". The truer interpretation I gather is one of Bolt appeasing the journalist, who likely raised leading questions.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by EPelle
                            God didn't send this: http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/wind/index.html , but it sure makes a lot of sense on these boards.
                            This was what I was using for my calculations.

                            I guess you typed something in wrong?

                            ??

                            .16 RT shaves .06 off the 9.77, which brings it down to 9.71 into a 1.3m/s headwind.

                            Switching it from a 1.3m/s headwind to a 1.0m/s tailwind does not ADD .05 to the time, it SUBTRACTS .12 from the time. Leaving us with 9.59, not 9.76.

                            ...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I think you're missing the greater point there. Did you plug in Bruxelles? That is where you are referring to your 9,77 (-1,3 m/s).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X