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

Socranoz wrote:

I can't believe anyone would think if not for his 6-5 stride Bolt is doing the same things. Talk about total ignorance.

Love your logic. Very convincing argument you have put forth there.

Deacon wrote:

Im sure if you genuinely understand the context that the original poster of that quote intended, then this sad attempt of yours would have seemed pointless. Three words that have been used in this thread which are key that you either don't know the definition of or you simply want to troll.....

Scale or Scale model

Ratio

Proportion

Not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

Let's use your cute little triumvirate of key words, shall we?

If an ant was scaled up to the size of a human keeping all body ratios and proportions the same then it would be able to lift up and walk around with objects that weighed two tons - without even straining itself.

I could fill in the rest for you but I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt (lord knows why!) and assume that there are a few neurons in working order within your cranium.

Nice to see Deacon's woefully poor articulation and comprehension on display.

It's also a great illustration of why I post here at letsrun--there is vanishingly little chance that you will find the word "triumvirate" used on another forum, or find posters who will call out somebody on their improper use of the concept of sameness.

There is nothing to argue, I'm talking about common sense. This isn't really something anyone who understands sprinting could question or debate.

Are you for real?

Socranoz wrote:

There is nothing to argue, I'm talking about common sense. This isn't really something anyone who understands sprinting could question or debate.

Hey, I didn't want to. I really didn't. But you are forcing me to point out how infinitely illogical you are.

Are you ready for the ride? Got your thinking cap on? Ok, here we go.

1) First, let us enter into a fantasy world in which any given athlete can be replicated precisely with the exact same proportions, fast/slow twitch ratios, lung capacity (proportionate), skeletal system, etc. You know what I am talking about here. OK, even though this is a fantasy world, I am perfectly happy to accept it for the sake of your (ahem) "argument".

2) Now, let us take any given individual, Usain Bolt, for instance. And let us replicate him many, many times. In fact, let us make 1,200 Usain Bolts. The shortest one will be 1" tall. The tallest one will be 1,200" (=100') tall.

3) Now, let us look at 1" Usain. He'd have incredible strength for his size (see 'ant'). He may even have incredible speed for his size. But I think that you will agree that his absolute speed would be quite limited compared to the average (full size) human. No?

4) Let us go on to look at 1,200" Usain. He would certainly be unable to lift his mass off of the ground. Indeed, it is unlikely that he would be able to breath. I can say, with absolute certainty that his max sprinting speed would be zero MPH. (I am hoping - perhaps against hope - that you are bright enough to see this as obvious).

5) Now, let us look at 77" Usain. There can be no doubt that the man is quick. Vastly faster than either 1" Usain or 1,200" Usain. No?

6) Imagine then that we created a graph (you remember these from math class, no?). On the x-axis would be the heights. On the y-axis would be the corresponding max sprinting velocity of x" Usain. 1" Usain would have a very small but non-zero maximum velocity (let's say 0.1 MPH - precision is not important here). 77" Usain would have a max velocity of let's say 27.5 MPH (again, precision is not important). Finally, 1,200" would have a maximum sprinting velocity of 0.0 MPH.

7) What about all the other 1,197 Usains? Well, it would very reasonable (though not strictly indisputable) that one could create a smooth curve connecting all of these 1,200 points and that this curve would be a) continuous, b) smooth, and most importantly c) have a single global maximum without any other local maximums.

8) The interesting questions that one could ask about this curve are a) what would that global maximum be? and b) what x would result in this global maximum. That is, which Usain would be the fastest and how fast would he be?

Go ahead and do this exercise. Don't worry, you won't have to fill in 1,200 points. Just fill in 1" Usain, 77" Usain, and 1,200" Usain.

Now, draw in the rest of the curve. Where does that peak value occur? Is it 77" Usain? Is it 102" Usain? Is it 68" Usain? Where is it?

Here is the simple truth. You (and I) have absolutely no idea. Such an optimized Usain surely exists in our imaginary world. But which Usain is it? You have absolutely no idea.

Don't want to accept this obvious fact? OK, then walk us through the logical argument (no hand waving allowed) that leads to you being able to determine which Usain is fastest and how fast they could go.

I would say something like, "I'll be waiting", but in truth I won't really be waiting at all. Because I am very aware that you will be completely incapable of answering this question in any sound manner (as would I).

The truth is that your entire argument comes down to "He's really fast and he is really tall. Therefore he must be really fast at least in part because he is really tall". Sorry if I do not find your argument too convincing.

Now, if you will excuse me I do find schooling fools such as yourself to be a bit tedious. Time to take a nap.

If Bolt's height had anything to do with it then all top sprinters would be his height and the 7' guys would be even better.

One of the biggest issues with people like you is that you think the mere use of certain words or the simple acquisition of certain things is an indication of worth or superiority. In reality getting the widest range of people to understand a given point in the simplest manner possible is far more desirable and shows a deeper understanding of the subject.

I'll say again that your preference for posting here has more to do with the fact that your audience is far more ignorant and indifferent to sprinting.

No the ant actually wouldn't be capable of any of those things but i assume you already knew that. The initial problem began the moment you ignored the original point in favor of being the pretentious type that frequents this place.

Bolt isn't a human sized version of Tyson Gay. He's just a bigger human....So this ant analogy wouldn't work for obvious reasons. But the very simple point of using a human of X height vs a human of Y height shouldn't have triggered your response.

Deacon wrote:

No the ant actually wouldn't be capable of any of those things but i assume you already knew that. The initial problem began the moment you ignored the original point in favor of being the pretentious type that frequents this place.

Bolt isn't a human sized version of Tyson Gay. He's just a bigger human....So this ant analogy wouldn't work for obvious reasons. But the very simple point of using a human of X height vs a human of Y height shouldn't have triggered your response.

Here is the point:

Hey, I didn't want to. I really didn't. But you are forcing me to point out how infinitely illogical you are.

Are you ready for the ride? Got your thinking cap on? Ok, here we go.

1) First, let us enter into a fantasy world in which any given athlete can be replicated precisely with the exact same proportions, fast/slow twitch ratios, lung capacity (proportionate), skeletal system, etc. You know what I am talking about here. OK, even though this is a fantasy world, I am perfectly happy to accept it for the sake of your (ahem) "argument".

2) Now, let us take any given individual, Usain Bolt, for instance. And let us replicate him many, many times. In fact, let us make 1,200 Usain Bolts. The shortest one will be 1" tall. The tallest one will be 1,200" (=100') tall.

3) Now, let us look at 1" Usain. He'd have incredible strength for his size (see 'ant'). He may even have incredible speed for his size. But I think that you will agree that his absolute speed would be quite limited compared to the average (full size) human. No?

4) Let us go on to look at 1,200" Usain. He would certainly be unable to lift his mass off of the ground. Indeed, it is unlikely that he would be able to breath. I can say, with absolute certainty that his max sprinting speed would be zero MPH. (I am hoping - perhaps against hope - that you are bright enough to see this as obvious).

5) Now, let us look at 77" Usain. There can be no doubt that the man is quick. Vastly faster than either 1" Usain or 1,200" Usain. No?

6) Imagine then that we created a graph (you remember these from math class, no?). On the x-axis would be the heights. On the y-axis would be the corresponding max sprinting velocity of x" Usain. 1" Usain would have a very small but non-zero maximum velocity (let's say 0.1 MPH - precision is not important here). 77" Usain would have a max velocity of let's say 27.5 MPH (again, precision is not important). Finally, 1,200" would have a maximum sprinting velocity of 0.0 MPH.

7) What about all the other 1,197 Usains? Well, it would very reasonable (though not strictly indisputable) that one could create a smooth curve connecting all of these 1,200 points and that this curve would be a) continuous, b) smooth, and most importantly c) have a single global maximum without any other local maximums.

8) The interesting questions that one could ask about this curve are a) what would that global maximum be? and b) what x would result in this global maximum. That is, which Usain would be the fastest and how fast would he be?

Go ahead and do this exercise. Don't worry, you won't have to fill in 1,200 points. Just fill in 1" Usain, 77" Usain, and 1,200" Usain.

Now, draw in the rest of the curve. Where does that peak value occur? Is it 77" Usain? Is it 102" Usain? Is it 68" Usain? Where is it?

Here is the simple truth. You (and I) have absolutely no idea. Such an optimized Usain surely exists in our imaginary world. But which Usain is it? You have absolutely no idea.

Don't want to accept this obvious fact? OK, then walk us through the logical argument (no hand waving allowed) that leads to you being able to determine which Usain is fastest and how fast they could go.

I would say something like, "I'll be waiting", but in truth I won't really be waiting at all. Because I am very aware that you will be completely incapable of answering this question in any sound manner (as would I).

The truth is that your entire argument comes down to "He's really fast and he is really tall. Therefore he must be really fast at least in part because he is really tall". Sorry if I do not find your argument too convincing.

Now, if you will excuse me I do find schooling fools such as yourself to be a bit tedious. Time to take a nap.

In this case, I will be waiting for you.

The moral of this story is that the bigger an object gets, the less of it there has to be in order for it to function normally.

Wouldn't it be far more logical to use examples where the clear and obvious effect of the s.q. law weren't in effect....We're talking about human beings that are within inches of each other. Not fairies and the nephilim......If you used an example where the range was 65"-77" you now can account for what effects things like training, drugs, weight, etc have on each group. Using a range so wide while eliminating opposite ends of each spectrum does nothing to account for these factors.

Deacon wrote:

The moral of this story is that the bigger an object gets, the less of it there has to be in order for it to function normally.

Wouldn't it be far more logical to use examples where the clear and obvious effect of the s.q. law weren't in effect....We're talking about human beings that are within inches of each other. Not fairies and the nephilim......If you used an example where the range was 65"-77" you now can account for what effects things like training, drugs, weight, etc have on each group. Using a range so wide while eliminating opposite ends of each spectrum does nothing to account for these factors.

In other words, you have absolutely no idea how to answer the question posed but you are afraid to admit it.

Athletics GOAT wrote:

If Bolt's height had anything to do with it then all top sprinters would be his height and the 7' guys would be even better.

It has been established that the all-time fastest humans sweet spot is anywhere between 5'9" and 6'1", and sure, there are a couple of exceptions in history who are taller and shorter. Yet it is clear to anyone with a brain that most world class fast guys fall in this range. There isn't enough statistical data (sample of one) to prove that Bolt's height offers any advantage and when you factor in the obvious PED use, it is fair to throw that sample of one out of the equation completely.

Please don't use that sorry excuse for an argument. If I don't answer a question it's either because I don't see a question or one wasn't posed to me. So if you would please hold my hand and direct me to the question i'll be glad to answer.

Deacon wrote:

Please don't use that sorry excuse for an argument. If I don't answer a question it's either because I don't see a question or one wasn't posed to me. So if you would please hold my hand and direct me to the question i'll be glad to answer.

Hey, I didn't want to. I really didn't. But you are forcing me to point out how infinitely illogical you are.

Are you ready for the ride? Got your thinking cap on? Ok, here we go.

1) First, let us enter into a fantasy world in which any given athlete can be replicated precisely with the exact same proportions, fast/slow twitch ratios, lung capacity (proportionate), skeletal system, etc. You know what I am talking about here. OK, even though this is a fantasy world, I am perfectly happy to accept it for the sake of your (ahem) "argument".

2) Now, let us take any given individual, Usain Bolt, for instance. And let us replicate him many, many times. In fact, let us make 1,200 Usain Bolts. The shortest one will be 1" tall. The tallest one will be 1,200" (=100') tall.

3) Now, let us look at 1" Usain. He'd have incredible strength for his size (see 'ant'). He may even have incredible speed for his size. But I think that you will agree that his absolute speed would be quite limited compared to the average (full size) human. No?

4) Let us go on to look at 1,200" Usain. He would certainly be unable to lift his mass off of the ground. Indeed, it is unlikely that he would be able to breath. I can say, with absolute certainty that his max sprinting speed would be zero MPH. (I am hoping - perhaps against hope - that you are bright enough to see this as obvious).

5) Now, let us look at 77" Usain. There can be no doubt that the man is quick. Vastly faster than either 1" Usain or 1,200" Usain. No?

6) Imagine then that we created a graph (you remember these from math class, no?). On the x-axis would be the heights. On the y-axis would be the corresponding max sprinting velocity of x" Usain. 1" Usain would have a very small but non-zero maximum velocity (let's say 0.1 MPH - precision is not important here). 77" Usain would have a max velocity of let's say 27.5 MPH (again, precision is not important). Finally, 1,200" would have a maximum sprinting velocity of 0.0 MPH.

7) What about all the other 1,197 Usains? Well, it would very reasonable (though not strictly indisputable) that one could create a smooth curve connecting all of these 1,200 points and that this curve would be a) continuous, b) smooth, and most importantly c) have a single global maximum without any other local maximums.

8) The interesting questions that one could ask about this curve are a) what would that global maximum be? and b) what x would result in this global maximum. That is, which Usain would be the fastest and how fast would he be?

Go ahead and do this exercise. Don't worry, you won't have to fill in 1,200 points. Just fill in 1" Usain, 77" Usain, and 1,200" Usain.

Now, draw in the rest of the curve. Where does that peak value occur? Is it 77" Usain? Is it 102" Usain? Is it 68" Usain? Where is it?

Here is the simple truth. You (and I) have absolutely no idea. Such an optimized Usain surely exists in our imaginary world. But which Usain is it? You have absolutely no idea.

Don't want to accept this obvious fact? OK, then walk us through the logical argument (no hand waving allowed) that leads to you being able to determine which Usain is fastest and how fast they could go.

I would say something like, "I'll be waiting", but in truth I won't really be waiting at all. Because I am very aware that you will be completely incapable of answering this question in any sound manner (as would I).

The truth is that your entire argument comes down to "He's really fast and he is really tall. Therefore he must be really fast at least in part because he is really tall". Sorry if I do not find your argument too convincing.

Now, if you will excuse me I do find schooling fools such as yourself to be a bit tedious. Time to take a nap.

Cute rhetoric on your part, I admit. The old 'hide behind some nonsense' trick.

Go ahead, show me that you can answer the question. Show me that you can provide clear rationale for why x" Usain should be the fastest. Because if you cannot (which I am quite certain that you cannot) then everything else you say is just so much hand waving.

I'm waiting.

hapkido wrote:

Athletics GOAT wrote:

If Bolt's height had anything to do with it then all top sprinters would be his height and the 7' guys would be even better.

It has been established that the all-time fastest humans sweet spot is anywhere between 5'9" and 6'1", and sure, there are a couple of exceptions in history who are taller and shorter. Yet it is clear to anyone with a brain that most world class fast guys fall in this range. There isn't enough statistical data (sample of one) to prove that Bolt's height offers any advantage and when you factor in the obvious PED use, it is fair to throw that sample of one out of the equation completely.

Oh really? That's the sweet spot, huh?

Care to demonstrate that in a logical manner?

Seriously? I read the post already, I just asked for the question in the post.

If the question is....

"OK, then walk us through the logical argument (no hand waving allowed) that leads to you being able to determine which Usain is fastest and how fast they could go."

.....then I would remind you that no one has suggest that Bolt's height is the sweet spot or that anyone is aware of this sweet spot. Which in essence means that I don't disagree that we wouldn't know. This isn't a question of whether the 77" Bolt is the maximized version. It's a question of whether the 77" Bolt is physiologically a superior sprinter than the 70" Tyson or the 74" Asafa or the 70" Ben Johnson. Drugs or not....

Which is why I explained the analogy about the ant being unnecessary. Once again, we're discussing creatures of similar size not creatures on opposite ends of the spectrum. Bolt isn't a ridiculously larger scaled version of anyone as the 1" version would be compared to the 1200" version. It would be far better to compare one ant to a slightly bigger ant or greyhound to a whippet.

"The truth is that your entire argument comes down to "He's really fast and he is really tall. Therefore he must be really fast at least in part because he is really tall". Sorry if I do not find your argument too convincing."

No that's what you're arguing against...

Hey Sprintgeezer,

You did not reply to the claim yet about, " sprinting isn't running"? That's your claim. It's obviously false. Why can't you concede this point??

Again, without proof that Bolt is or has used PEDs, it's mere speculation on your or others part.

But why are you saying something that is clearly false about our favorite sport?

Many folks will think this is a trivial point ....but ....it's revealing. Words mean something.

Deacon: "The moral of this story is that the bigger an object gets, the less of it there has to be in order for it to function normally."

LMAO

Deacon, would you object to me starting a thread entitled "The Best of Deacon"?