Tons of those guys were/are as fast or faster than faster than Lewis.
Witherspoon was 6’5”, he wasn’t amazing.
The 100m is a composite. Taller guys (Bolt, Obikwelu, Lemaitre, Lewis, etc) have a lower first half ceiling, and shorter guys (Greene, BJ, CC, etc) have a lower second-half ceiling.
The most important thing in the use of PED’s is to compensate for deficiencies—tall guys in the first half, shorter guys in the 2nd half. The key is to look for athletes with an exceptional half—eg Bolt in the 2nd, BJ in the 1st—and supplement accordingly. It’s a system as old as time.
The vogue now has been to find those intrinsically better in the 2nd half, but only because guys except CC have forgotten how to accelerate well. The fashion before that was BJ, Mullings, Greene, Frater, etc who had a great first half, then the 2nd was bumped. BJ’s Seoul 2nd half was great; Greene’s was always great; Frater used to run long 2nd’s on WR relays with the best ever running other legs!
There is no intrinsic 100m benefit from height. Which direction supps better is a function of both supps and enforcement environment.
The best seems to be the mid-range guys like Gatlin, Bailey, etc maybe up to Powell and now Thompson, who use different amounts of broader-spectrum tools.
Each era is different. Great height is no advantage. 6’5” or 6’6” is imo the max profitable, and maybe 5’7” or 5’8” the min. Between those 2 values, you play. The he better you are at the game, and the more competitive advantages you have, the better you end up. Bolt had the biggest competitive advantage in the history of sprinting, all the way to the top, which is the only reason he has ended up with the fastest clocking.
Basically agree, but even you are overemphasizing height with finishing abilities. I'd agree there's overlap, like a Venn diagram with height and "2nd half" proficiency in sprinters. But it's not a universal truth, and you could get a guy under 6' to finish with the best of them.
To make a long story short (pun) -since people mostly ignore anyway-, I'd argue that Shacarri Richardson is an example of a inversion of the height claim. She's a bad starter and a stronger finisher, and she's quite short, even for females. I know this inversion can happen because that's how I was as a sprinter, too, though not nearly at the elite level (in gender contexts, anyway) as a Richardson.
Another good (and should be obvious) example:
Tyson Gay is 5'11 and his peak finishing ability was probably closer in quality to Bolts than Gays starting ability was to abolt. In essence, Gay was typically out accelerated by Bolt, rather than Bolt simply running away from him. Doesn't Gay have the fastest 10m split, outside of Bolt, ever recorded?? So he was a male under 6' and he was practically inverting Bolt in real time. Though 5'11 isn't exactly short...I still argue it's proof against the claims made here about sprinter height.
Yes, agree, although the “general rule” holds.
But that is why I mentioned Frater on 2nd, and Greene’s top end. Let’s also not forget ADG and his 100m 2nd half, as well as his fantastic 200m PB.
On the other side of the scale, you have Powell, who was “tall” but could start with the best of them. His 60m PB isn’t indicative of his best 60m, and his first 25m was absolutely superb, including his textbook block clearance.
So yes, agreed.
btw anybody who has gone sub-9.8 has run a blazing first 60m, probably 6.30-6.37.
Bolt has been THE BEST to date not because of 9.58, or goofed and negative-leaned 9.69, but because he LITERALLY jogged the second half in a 9.8x quarter. In fact, watch his Berlin semi: 9.89, JOGGED THE SECOND HALF😮. Jogged 9.8’s are the single most insane 100m performances I have ever seen, and THAT is the thing that nobody else has come close to replicating.
None of you know how stratospheric a 9.8 is. BJ began a new era, but Bolt was the one who did it EASILY. Blake came close, but…
Won’t the Enhanced Games answer this question? They will be offering $1M (plus a 6 figure salary) to anyone who breaks the 100M WR. I would imagine that’s enough to get some 10.0 guys to try it.
It takes a lot more than drugs to run 9.58. Tim Montgomery went from a legal low 9.9 runner to a mid 9.7 runner off a steroid regimen - that is most likely as far as anyone will be able to go.
No, that's just ignorance. The outliers in the 100m are those men who can attain 12 meters per second and women who can attain 11 meters per second. And this is a genetic trait that can't be attained by doping.
When they perfect their start and their speed endurance, they become true world class sprinters.
You and others like you are the real doping problem but you will never understand why.
I don't use this phrase lightly - that's an absolutely r-tarded take.
Because we all know very well the "issues" collectively the men under 9.80 have had historically with respect to doping - either serving bans or being implicated in it. 4 of the top 5 men on the all-time list have served suspension time alone - with the one guy that hasn't being the guy at the top of the list by an astronomical 0.11 seconds - Usain Bolt.
Gay - 12 months, Testosterone/DHEA
Blake - gets off on a technicality authorized by the Jamaican "Anti-Doping" Commission, Methylhexanamine
Powell - 18 months, Oxilofrine
Gatlin - banned twice in his career, first time amphetamines, second time Testosterone/DHEA.
"Myself and others are the real doping problem?" Hahahaha - that one made me literally laugh out laugh. Good one.
Repeat the olimpic final lineup in Hernando Siles Stadium at La Paz (Bolivia) 3 weeks after a world major. At 3637 (11.932 ft) above sea level. If they catch a good legal tailwind (+1,8) we can see sub 9.70's and probably a sub 9.60.
For example, Letsile Tebogo ran 9.91 (WJR) in Cali (Colombia) two years ago. If you look the video, in the final 20 meters he was preserving himself to probably, a sub 9.84. And Cali is not too high in altitude.
The calculator says the two 9.79s in Paris would probably come out to around a 9.69 with a perfect +2 wind in that location. At least by the numbers as is.
By comparison, Bolts Berlin run would probably end up a 9.48 in LA Paz with a +1.8, and even dip lower to 9.47 with the full +2.0.
For further comparison, Tyson Gays 9.71 in Berlin would become a 9.60 flat in LA Paz with the full +2.0 wind, and Blake's 9.69 in Lusanne would become a 9.55 with a perfect +2.0 wind in LA Paz.
Blake's Lusanne 9.69 is the closest to Bolt-like anyone ever really got; and it's worth a "basic" 9.70. But I don't think Blake broke a 9.80 in basic ever again, so I've always found that Lusanne result to be....I dunno. I'm sure it's legit in its metrics....I just don't think it justifies putting him as truly #2 behind Bolt in the "all time" brute numbers 100m time result list.
Gay, on the other hand, ran more consistently for a bit longer, and he has his 9.71 in Berlin (worth a 9.75 in basic) as well as a couple more converted sub 9.8s in basic that peak with his 9.78 in London (worth another 9.75 due to negative wind). To me, he's the legit second best in terms of raw times and the environments they ran in.
And all these guys now pale in comparison to to the Bolt/Gay/Blake/Powell era. It's really not even close.
So I know that the scoring tables aren't perfect - but they aren't bad.
9.58 - the best track record in the sport according to the tables, clocks in at a whopping 1355 points. To put this in context...
That's an 800m WR of 1.39.27
A 1500m WR of 3.22.44
Think Jakob might break the legendary 3000m record of Komen in Silesia with a mark for the ages? Well to match Bolts 100m record he'd need to go a casual 7.12.25.
To put in context against the women, well the current record is the PED fuelled, +4.5 meter per second wind aided 10.49 from Flo Jo but 10.31 is the equivilent.
The record of Bolt is so absurd it defies description. It's not just that it's better - it's just so much of an outlier vs every other event we have it's simply not plausible. Can you imagine if Sedjati or Wanyoni ripped off a 1.39 low? Jakob went out in 1.48.0 in Lausanne, hit 1200 in 2.42 and closed out in a 40 point? You simply can't right. Think about how good you believe the other track WR's are - well they are pale in comparison to his 100 (and 200 but the 100 is marginally better).
The way this record can be broken is if you already have a sprinting super talent (like Bolt naturally was), with similar physiology (right at 6'4 or taller) and you (I really hate saying this but I sadly believe it), sophisticatedly dope them with impunity. Because you need to have a candidate that can go 9.85'ish clean but then really max out the benefits of a smart doping regime that can get you those 3 tenths of a second maximum benefit we tend to see with the pure anaerobic power events.
How long will it last? I truly believe I might never live to see this broken unless stuff gets really out of hand. What evidence do we have it could be? Seriously?
Nah, the 400mh, 3km, and marathon are better running records. What happened is the blood passport lacked a lot of androgen-type drugs until about 2014/2015 after which 9.76 became the upper limit for the current generation of sprinters. In about 5 years a new type of drug with better spikes will take 9.75 down to 9.64 them someone will get a perfect tailwind on a great track and the record will go. Most of the field records are better but they are dirtier!
It's been mentioned in this thread, but it hasn't been really discussed. Blake and Lyles are 5'11". Gatlin is 6'1". Usain Bolt is 6'5". Everything else being equal, height is a factor in the 100m. You don't see many world class sprinters under 5'10". I'm sure they exist, but most world class sprinters have been closer to 6' or taller. Carl Lewis is 6'2".
The fastest 60m every recorded was in the 100m semi-finals in Tokyo when Su Bingtian ran 6.29. Su is 5'8". Bolt's top speed is faster than Bingtian's. Another outlier is Christian Coleman at 5'9", but they are the exceptions to the rule.
Height obviously isn't the only reason Bolt's record is so impressive, but it is a factor. If you watch his races, Bolt would begin to pull away between 50 and 70 meters. He could run faster from 50 to 100m than anyone in the world at the time.
Tons of those guys were/are as fast or faster than faster than Lewis.
Witherspoon was 6’5”, he wasn’t amazing.
The 100m is a composite. Taller guys (Bolt, Obikwelu, Lemaitre, Lewis, etc) have a lower first half ceiling, and shorter guys (Greene, BJ, CC, etc) have a lower second-half ceiling.
The most important thing in the use of PED’s is to compensate for deficiencies—tall guys in the first half, shorter guys in the 2nd half. The key is to look for athletes with an exceptional half—eg Bolt in the 2nd, BJ in the 1st—and supplement accordingly. It’s a system as old as time.
The vogue now has been to find those intrinsically better in the 2nd half, but only because guys except CC have forgotten how to accelerate well. The fashion before that was BJ, Mullings, Greene, Frater, etc who had a great first half, then the 2nd was bumped. BJ’s Seoul 2nd half was great; Greene’s was always great; Frater used to run long 2nd’s on WR relays with the best ever running other legs!
There is no intrinsic 100m benefit from height. Which direction supps better is a function of both supps and enforcement environment.
The best seems to be the mid-range guys like Gatlin, Bailey, etc maybe up to Powell and now Thompson, who use different amounts of broader-spectrum tools.
Each era is different. Great height is no advantage. 6’5” or 6’6” is imo the max profitable, and maybe 5’7” or 5’8” the min. Between those 2 values, you play. The he better you are at the game, and the more competitive advantages you have, the better you end up. Bolt had the biggest competitive advantage in the history of sprinting, all the way to the top, which is the only reason he has ended up with the fastest clocking.
"There is no intrinsic 100m benefit from height. Which direction supps better is a function of both supps and enforcement environment.
Well, kinda surprised you would say this. A longer level = more torque that would influence angular velocity.
Tyson gay ran 9.69 later that year, Bolt ran 9.63 in 2012 and Yohan Blake ran 9.69 in 2012 but in the last 10 years the closest anyone has come is Gatlin's 9.74 from 2015.
So no one is within .16 of the record the last decade.
Noah Lyles' PB 9.79 is the exact same amount of time from 10.00 as it is from Bolt's record.
So thoughts? How long do you think this thing lasts?
It has always made perfect sense to me that one human being could be so much faster than all of his other competitors including those 15 years down the road. Moreso when we consider some of them were caught using illegal substances and he managed to do it clean.