Announcement

**The Atheist** · 08-11-2009, 08:37 AM

Well, I mean, as far as the 0.13 thing, I think I only said that when people were trying to theorize what he is capable of running as far as what his time would be if he ran a perfect race.

I was not, however, saying that this is what I generally expect his reaction time to be when he runs a 100m race.

In my opinion, with no false starts I expect his reaction time to be around .16 usually (sometimes slower, sometimes faster). And with a false start I expect it to be around .18 (sometimes slower sometims faster).

I have not seen what his reaction time was for all of his races though, so I do not know for sure.

As for the arguments about top end speed where people were saying Tyson will beat Usain because Tyson has better top end speed because he hits it later in the race than anyone else, I agree with you that it is just absurd to assume that this necessarily somehow means Tyson will take down Usain. For several reasons:

Reason #1: Hitting your top speed later than everyone else doesn't NECESSARILY mean you will run a faster race TIME than everyone else. Even if you hit a higher mph, and hit it later on in the race than anyone else. That STILL does not necessarily mean that one will WIN the race. Let's say, for a brutal example, that someone took a whopping 3 HOURS to get from the starting blocks to the ten meter mark, due to having poor (biggest understatement of all time) acceleration, and then eventually hit a very impressive top speed of 29 miles per hour at the 90 meter mark, and slowed to 28 miles per hour in the last 10 meters of the race. Okay, well, in that example their race TIME was more than 3 HOURS, meaning they LOST the race, since everyone else was running it in around 10 SECONDS, not 3 HOURS, obviously, lol, EVEN THOUGH the big-late-top-end-speed guy hit a higher top speed than anyone else and hit it further into the race than anyone else. So what was the problem? Well, the problem was that although he minimized the amount of speed loss after hitting top speed, by hitting it as late as possible (90 meter mark) and hit a huge top speed (29 mph), this just wasn't good enough, cuz he took a disgusting THREE FREAKING HOURS just to make it to the 10 meter mark. We've all finished reading The Great Gatsby, Moby Dick, War and Peace, and Sense and Sensibility by the time he reaches the 10 meter mark of eff's sake! Lol! So it is no longer even RELEVANT what top speed he hits, or when he hits it, in that scenario, if the race is OVER before he has even gotten above 1 mile per hour, let alone 20 miles per hour. I mean, this is obviously a massively grossly exaggerated example, but I am using it to PROVE A POINT. That mathematically speaking, it is POSSIBLE to hit a higher top speed than anyone else in a race, and hit it later in the race than anyone else, and still LOSE the race.

Reason #2: I don't even agree with them that Tyson Gay has a higher top speed than Usain Bolt. My guess is that Usain Bolt has a max velocity of around 28.5 miles per hour and Tyson Gay has a max velocity of around 28 miles per hour.

Reason #3: I don't even agree with them that Tyson Gay hits his top speed later in the race than Usain Bolt does. I think they both hit it at about the exact same time, at about the 70 meter mark.

I do, however, feel that Usain Bolt accelerates faster than Gay between the 30 meter mark and 70 meter mark, and is thus ahead of Gay by the 70 meter mark, and that in addition to that, he decelerates LESS than Gay AFTER the 70 meter mark, meaning he pulls away just that much MORE in the last 30 meters...

These are the reasons I disagree with Speedfirst & Co. about Tyson Gay being able to beat Usain Bolt in Berlin in the 100.

Actually, those aren't TRULY the reasons I disagree with Speedfirst about Tyson Gay being able to beat Usain Bolt in Berlin in the 100.

The real reason for me, the easiest, simplest, most blatant reason doesn't have anything to do with reaction times, drive phases, top speeds, or any of that. It has to do with the race time itself.

Bolt can run a mid 9.6 in 0 wind. Gay can't. Seems to me that this is the one and only problem that really actually MATTERS here. If you can't hit the finish line as soon as someone else can, then, you AREN'T GOING TO F***ING WIN!!! DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lol! How is this complicated!?!?!??

**scratchman** · 08-11-2009, 12:00 PM

Dear Athiest-
We dont agree all the time. But I do like your analysis. I think you made a lot of sense and I appreciate that kind of insight. I ABSOLUTELY agree that just because a person can delay hitting their top end in the 100 until late in the race doesnt mean they'll win. I'm reminded of that old saying "too little...too late"; or in this case, too much too late. I dont think Tyson has more top end than Bolt. But I do think he has enough to challenge him...that is, if he had the kind of start that allowed him to get ahead enough in the beginning with very little expenditure. Unfortunately, that kind of race package probably doesnt exist in anyone we're seeing right now. Powell, when he's on, has perhaps the best start out there. But if he ran a "complete" race :roll: , Bolts top end is still too devastating for him to hold off. Thats why I created the thread "What It Takes To Beat Bolt", because I'm interested in reading good opinions like the one you provided- sans the dogmatism :wink: .
Thanks A

**Speedfirst** · 08-11-2009, 12:33 PM

Talk about taking things out of contexrt, I never said Tyson would beat Bolt based purely on top end speed or that was the reason why, please I can represent myself without anyone misrepresenting me.

I further went on to expound on my top end speed philosophy, John Smith and others share somethings along this line of thinking.

Atheist you said doesn't necessarily mean beating Bolt, well getting out, running a flawless race, any one particular component maynot necessarily mean beating Bolt either.

Bolt came out of nowhere with respect to what he accomplished in the 100m in 2008 and on top of that, Tyson didn't run in Beijing who would've been his biggest threat.

I'm still waiting to see if Bolt can be consistent in running like he did in Beijing. Is he the ONE to beat, the favorite, absolutely. Can Bolt lose, sure he can, will he is the question. Name one undefeated world class/elite 100m sprinter?

Folks bring up R/T, acceleration, blocks, etc., ...but again what was more glaring than any of that, was the 41 strides, we've seen all the other components mentioned before in many a sprinter, when have you ever seen 41 strides? That's the seperation right there, we can discuss how Bolt accomplished that, which hasn't even been discussed. If y'all don't think his 41 strides wasn't the key, I don't know what to tell you.

**Marlow** · 08-11-2009, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by The Atheist

Bolt can run a mid 9.6 in 0 wind. . . . How is this complicated!?!?!??

It's complicated by the fact that just because Bolt CAN (and yes, he can) run mid-9.6 (maybe even low 9.6!) does not mean he WILL on 'any given Sunday'. Asking him to run his best in one single pre-identified race (the WC final) is unfair (of course, the same applies to everyone else). I EXPECT he will, but that still doesn't mean he will. He is human and Stuff Happens.

**SQUACKEE** · 08-11-2009, 01:43 PM

Bolt is a mid 9.6ish dude and Gay, so far, is a mid 9.7ish. Bolt could get sick, have the worst reaction time of his life, get injured or breakup with his girlfriend 10 mins before the final. The best news for Bolt is he can run "only" 9.74 and still win. This assumes Gay doesnt suddenly become a tenth of a second faster.

I think the guy who runs the fastest will win and thank God the men's 100m is one of the first races so we can stop all this chit chat.

**guruof track** · 08-11-2009, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by SQUACKEE

Bolt is a mid 9.6ish dude and Gay, so far, is a mid 9.7ish. Bolt could get sick, have the worst reaction time of his life, get injured or breakup with his girlfriend 10 mins before the final. The best news for Bolt is he can run "only" 9.74 and still win. This assumes Gay doesnt suddenly become a tenth of a second faster.

I think the guy who runs the fastest will win and thank God the men's 100m is one of the first races so we can stop all this chit chat.

Then we have the 200, the 400, the 400h (USA sweep

), and 4x1s.

I'm so excited. Wish we had som middle distance guys who could realistically challenge. Perfect storm and Nick may even sneak a medal.

**SQUACKEE** · 08-11-2009, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by guruof track

Then we have the 200, the 400, the 400h (USA sweep

), and 4x1s.

I'm so excited. Wish we had som middle distance guys who could realistically challenge. Perfect storm and Nick may even sneak a medal.

Nooooooo...... hey wait, what about the defending World 1500m champ?

**guruof track** · 08-11-2009, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by SQUACKEE

Originally posted by guruof track

Then we have the 200, the 400, the 400h (USA sweep

), and 4x1s.

I'm so excited. Wish we had som middle distance guys who could realistically challenge. Perfect storm and Nick may even sneak a medal.

Nooooooo...... hey wait, what about the defending World 1500m champ?

Very much so true. Lagat should be one of the favorites for the 1500.

**eldrick** · 08-11-2009, 07:16 PM

this one is for mikewatts/atheist on that locked topic ( what's it take to beat bolt ) before it got idiotised

after a bit of analysis, a working formula for 50m time to predict 100m time is

100m = (2 2/3)*50m - 5.013

i'll test it out on the table daisy published

obviously, it indicates faster at 50m, you'll get faster overall 100m for elites

**DentyCracker** · 08-11-2009, 07:34 PM

Welcome back.
All questions will soon be answered

**Mikewats** · 08-11-2009, 07:36 PM

Anyone else think that bolt has got a freaking crazy dip as well, made an even bigger advantage by how tall he is. My prediction for Beijing with a run through and a dip is 9.62. If you add in all the most favourable reaction times and wind speeds etc he's running something crazy

I think at Beijing he did it perfectly, he ran the WR, ran it on 0 wind, did a celebration before the finish line and became a great showman as well as athlete. Also leaves it open for future WR's which is good and he's still young. A faster time would of been nice for track fans wanting to see how fast he can run, but for athletics and himself he did it perfectly.

If he breaks WR this year he hits all the headlines again, maybe say mid 9.6, would be a lot harder to get if he ran 9.60. He then leaves himself open for beating the WR at London which presumable will be his career peak. Wind speed is always the factor. He can get a +1.5 wind speed after Berlin raing Asafa and Gay and knock the WR into 9.5 territory and never touch it again.

Prefer him to steadily improve it and run 9.5 in london mainly because i hope to be there when he does it.

**eldrick** · 08-11-2009, 07:55 PM

formula seems ok

looking at all-time lists :

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists ... etail.html

looks like sanford ( a complete 100m guy ) was unlucky not to get the 100m outdoor wr in '81 ( injured after indoors ? )

his 5.61 equates to about 9.95

**Who_Cares** · 08-11-2009, 08:16 PM

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, not again. :lol:

Announcement

Bolt "In Theory" (split)

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Bolt "In Theory" (split)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment