Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What will Usain Bolt's 100m time be in France next week?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by richxx87
    In Paris, Bolt will....

    Injury DNF.

    Like I said in that other thread about Gay's Rome 9.77, Bolt has never gone 2 full consecutive injury-free seasons since he was young teen. He's now at 1.5 years and counting so the odds and history are against him. It's only a matter of when; this week, this month...?? OR can he go into unprecedented territory for his own body??
    very idiotic to use history to predict injuries.

    Does Bolt's body have some sort of injury time bomb?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by 3
      Originally posted by euan Track Guru
      What about 2007 & 2008 ? That seems like 2 consecutive seasons to me in which he was injury free. Secondly you need to answer the question posed to you about why he was injury prone.
      What happened with the 26.27s (seventh place) in Athens? Bolt was considerably touched last season when Powell and Gay went down with injuries. Bolt considered himself a prime target for the injury plague.
      Maybe you need to utilize your search engine, judging from that statement it will be great help to you to get information that you are obviously lacking.

      Comment


      • #48
        In fairness and balance to this discussion, of which I have not been an invited guest: How does one know that a series of 9.7 runs by Bolt wouldn't tear down his body? This territory, even for Bolt, is unprecedented.
        Fire Impossible.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by 3
          Originally posted by euan Track Guru
          What about 2007 & 2008 ? That seems like 2 consecutive seasons to me in which he was injury free. Secondly you need to answer the question posed to you about why he was injury prone.
          What happened with the 26.27s (seventh place) in Athens? Bolt was considerably touched last season when Powell and Gay went down with injuries. Bolt considered himself a prime target for the injury plague.
          You are not making any sense whatsoever here. Bolt ran 26.27 in the 2005 World Championship finals in Helsinki after sustaining an injury(note he came off the bend before Gatlin). You got your year and City wrong in the same post.
          20201.jpg

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by 3
            In fairness and balance to this discussion, of which I have not been an invited guest: How does one know that a series of 9.7 runs by Bolt wouldn't tear down his body? This territory, even for Bolt, is unprecedented.
            Bolt ran 9.76 followed by 9.72 (world record) in his 3rd and 4th profesional 100meters go figure.
            20201.jpg

            Comment


            • #51
              Basic times?

              I dont understand the point of finding basic times...

              you measure the wind/altitude I know, but honestly whats the trustworthiness of the wind? You can be around 0.05 within range of what the person is capable of.

              How about taking in these factors as well

              1) Track hardness / surface
              2) Weather
              3) Temperature
              4) Athlete's body weight

              And on top of that...

              - inconsistent wind... it doesnt blow at 1.5m/s for the entire duration of the race, if the athlete gets a better push off one race in the blocks he wont need much wind help for his drive phase, so wind could blow at almost 0, and then reach much higher speeds later in the race when he's starting to deccelerate.


              Really by saying someone is 0.01 or 0.02 faster than some by "basic time" is very idiotic because there's too many factors that decide a couple hundreths of a second

              Comment


              • #52
                In 2008, Bolt had a breakthrough season. In 2009, he's behind the schedule he was on in 2008. If he runs at the times he did in 2008, without the proper training required in 2009, is there any chance - however great or small - that he will suffer an injury at the hand of fate?
                Fire Impossible.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by 3
                  In fairness and balance to this discussion, of which I have not been an invited guest: How does one know that a series of 9.7 runs by Bolt wouldn't tear down his body? This territory, even for Bolt, is unprecedented.
                  With all due respect please learn how to get your facts, put them together and articulate in a better manner on this board.
                  20201.jpg

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by euan Track Guru
                    You are not making any sense whatsoever here. Bolt ran 26.27 in the 2005 World Championship finals in Helsinki after sustaining an injury(note he came off the bend before Gatlin). You got your year and City wrong in the same post.
                    Thank you. Now that the year has moved up a year, to 2005 from 2004, what happened to Bolt? He feared, three years later, that the injury status was elevated an it could strike him as easily and as mightily as it did Powell and Gay.

                    Sorry, euan Track Guru, but again, in fairness and balance to this discussion, how does one know that a series of 9.7 runs (not two) by Bolt wouldn't tear down his body? This territory (of running 9.7 runs on average day in and day out), even for Bolt, is unprecedented.
                    Fire Impossible.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by 3
                      In fairness and balance to this discussion, of which I have not been an invited guest: How does one know that a series of 9.7 runs by Bolt wouldn't tear down his body? This territory, even for Bolt, is unprecedented.
                      Well clearly Bolt's capacity is much higher than a 9.7, the theory was athletes only had a certain number of sub 10s in their career that their body could handle. Bolt strided out a 9.92 at quarter finals in beijing last year, obviously this type of theory doesnt apply to him at all.

                      If we're giving him large tailwinds and hes running low 9.6 and hits the 9.5 zone, then there's a concern for how much he can handle, but I would have zero concern about 9.7-9.8 for him.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by 3
                        In 2008, Bolt had a breakthrough season. In 2009, he's behind the schedule he was on in 2008. If he runs at the times he did in 2008, without the proper training required in 2009, is there any chance - however great or small - that he will suffer an injury at the hand of fate?
                        .

                        Bolt and his management team is doing a great job managing expectations for Bolt and that is why downplaying his readiness is a key communication tool for them. This is also an additional weapon for them, keep the opponents off guard.

                        On the other hand if you know track and field you would realize that Bolt is in sub 19.40 shape right now and sub 9.80 shape. In early August his coach will have him in about sub 19.30 and definitely sub 9.70 shape(if he is not already there much sooner). Peaking at the right time injury free is key. He will peak correctly for Berlin.
                        20201.jpg

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Has it been scientifically proven that 9.7-9.8 for a first-year 100m sprinter has no negative effect on his progress, and that by sprinting that fast (or slow, dependent on your individual perspective), he will not suffer injury and a forced period of rest?
                          Fire Impossible.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by 3
                            Has it been scientifically proven that 9.7-9.8 for a first-year 100m sprinter has no negative effect on his progress, and that by sprinting that fast (or slow, dependent on your individual perspective), he will not suffer injury and a forced period of rest?
                            He had quite a lot of rest after he ended his season. And wasnt doing much high intensity work for some time once he came back.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Basic times?

                              Originally posted by track_expert
                              I dont understand the point of finding basic times...

                              you measure the wind/altitude I know, but honestly whats the trustworthiness of the wind? You can be around 0.05 within range of what the person is capable of.

                              How about taking in these factors as well

                              1) Track hardness / surface
                              2) Weather
                              3) Temperature
                              4) Athlete's body weight


                              And on top of that...

                              - inconsistent wind... it doesnt blow at 1.5m/s for the entire duration of the race, if the athlete gets a better push off one race in the blocks he wont need much wind help for his drive phase, so wind could blow at almost 0, and then reach much higher speeds later in the race when he's starting to deccelerate.


                              Really by saying someone is 0.01 or 0.02 faster than some by "basic time" is very idiotic because there's too many factors that decide a couple hundreths of a second
                              Along with that you would need athletes inseam, stride length, muscle mass compared to fat mass. But why would any of the people who live in the basic time world ever want to consider that????

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by 3
                                Has it been scientifically proven that 9.7-9.8 for a first-year 100m sprinter has no negative effect on his progress, and that by sprinting that fast (or slow, dependent on your individual perspective), he will not suffer injury and a forced period of rest?
                                . It was also scientifically stated that man could not run 9.69 until about 2030

                                http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/ ... is-freaky/
                                20201.jpg

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X