LOL 9.58 for Bolt!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by X

Usain Bolt ran at 40 mph to break his previous world record. You might think that's good but if he hits a child there's an 80% chance she'll die.

---

You god dam barstard! ;D

I laughed so hard, i almost shat my self!! :o

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...ld-record.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamGB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

What did I do?

And why did you neg rep today for a post that was over a year old?

Has it been on your mind all that time?

I have to say though, it's a good time and all but I'm not really sure why the hundred meters has such a prestigious reputation as the greatest athletic acheivement.

I mean there are other events that are many times more demanding, and require far more from an athlete and also we are one of the slowest land mammals on earth so what really is the appeal?

Even the fastest sprinter on earth still gets humbled by any random dog, horse, deer, etc, probably even a big lumbering rhino could catch Bolt.

Any truly great physical test shouldn't be all over inside 10 seconds. That's not even a warm up.

---

Bilbo mate do a little bit of reading on ATP-CP/Lactose Energy systems muscular power/elastic strength and sprinting technique and then knock the 100 metres... ;)

And bilbo most other mammals are lousy over long distances... how ever fast they are becomes irelevant because they can't sweat to control body heat, over prolounged peroids of excertion if they don't stop this causes them to sort of... die :p

(basically what I'm saying is stick your greyhound up your arse)

---

Well even if that was true, (which it isn't African wild dogs can maintain a speed of 35 mph for over 3 milles and back in medieval times mounted knights would ride horses for 60 miles a day on good terrain)' then why arn't the long distance events given greater prestige as then we are actually performing better than the majority of the animal kingdom unlike the 100 meters where we are pitiful?

Anyway I'm only being argumentative for Amat's sake..

---

mate it is true, other animals can't sweat, there's a few exceptions to the rule like hippos (though they sweat oils to act like sun cream, not regulate temperature) but in general they can't. This means that they can't sustain periods of prolonged exertion (the exertion is obviously relative to the animal's size and strength though, have you seen the stride a horse gets? They're not exactly natures weakest runners ;) a half marathon would be like a full marathon if you were a hobbit)

Maybe these african dogs are an exception but why in general do you think dogs pant so much, stick there tongues out/whipe out a whole entire water bowl after an WALK? ;)

That's how we used to catch them, (as you've observed most of them are faster than us/navigate rough terrain better than us)... we'd out last them during a hunt.

But to answer your athletics question I believe that both events get about the same prestige... it's a lot easier to watch a 10 second race than it is a 2 hour one. Speed is something direct that you can see and talk about in the pub etc... if you were in the pub what exactly would you say about a marathon? And like you say, we're naturally better over distances than other species... so it's not really a major talking point is it? ;)

Nobody brags about being better at maths than a monkey... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamGB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamGB

Bilbo mate do a little bit of reading on ATP-CP/Lactose Energy systems muscular power/elastic strength and sprinting technique and then knock the 100 metres... ;)

And bilbo most other mammals are lousy over long distances... how ever fast they are becomes irelevant because they can't sweat to control body heat, over prolounged peroids of excertion if they don't stop this causes them to sort of... die :p

(basically what I'm saying is stick your greyhound up your arse)

---

Well even if that was true, (which it isn't African wild dogs can maintain a speed of 35 mph for over 3 milles and back in medieval times mounted knights would ride horses for 60 miles a day on good terrain)' then why arn't the long distance events given greater prestige as then we are actually performing better than the majority of the animal kingdom unlike the 100 meters where we are pitiful?

Anyway I'm only being argumentative for Amat's sake..

---

mate it is true, other animals can't sweat, there's a few exceptions to the rule like hippos (though they sweat oils to act like sun cream, not regulate temperature) but in general they can't. This means that they can't sustain periods of prolonged exertion (the exertion is obviously relative to the animal's size and strength though, have you seen the stride a horse gets? They're not exactly natures weakest runners ;) a half marathon would be like a full marathon if you were a hobbit)

Maybe these african dogs are an exception but why in general do you think dogs pant so much, stick there tongues out/whipe out a whole entire water bowl after an WALK? ;)

That's how we used to catch them, (as you've observed most of them are faster than us/navigate rough terrain better than us)... we'd out last them during a hunt.

But to answer your athletics question I believe that both events get about the same prestige... it's a lot easier to watch a 10 second race than it is a 2 hour one. Speed is something direct that you can see and talk about in the pub etc... if you were in the pub what exactly would you say about a marathon? And like you say, we're naturally better over distances than other species... so it's not really a major talking point is it? ;)

Nobody brags about being better at maths than a monkey... ;)

---

If I ever meet a monkey I will brag.....

There's a monkey trail at edinborough zoo now...

THIS IS NO PLACE FOR A HOBBIT!