just awesome
Printable View
just awesome
I guess it's a reflection of the era we live in, but whenever I see things like this I immediately think of steroids. Not that I think Bolt is using them or that there is any evidence to support such a claim, it's just the first thing that springs to mind. That and all the grown hormones in our food.
he's got long legs, but he moves his legs just as fast as the shorter guys. ergo he's faster.
man I am glad you are here to point that out for us CGM. Absolute brilliant insight ;D
in zee german 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqlHEwmyPXw
Yeah. well I'd be just as fast as Tyson Gay, but somehow he can move his legs faster. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
Jamaican authoritys are very lenient on the whole drug testing thing and tend to turn a blind eye to it. Though im quite sure the IAAF have tested bolt many times so i guess its legit.
Good to see us brits have a gold to celebrate
Imo they should have a pro drug competition where steroid use is unrestricted so we can see just how far our athletes could go and what they are capable of if not tied up and restricted by all the red tape and legislation that comes with sporting rules.
If a Bolt on steroids could go sub 9.50, maybe even sub 9 seconds then let's see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
I believed Ben Johnson did that in 86 olympics running below 9 seconds but was dq'ed after testing positive on banned substance
Johnson ran 9.79 which was amazing at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by spadeQuote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
I believed Ben Johnson did that in 86 olympics running below 9 seconds but was dq'ed after testing positive on banned substance
not even close.Quote:
Originally Posted by spade
He ran 9.95 in 1986, then 9.83 in 1987, and the following year, had his now infamous World/Olympic, and own world-breaking record run of 9.79. To which he promptly got tested for, shunned, and was heard to say getting off an airplane from, "Stereo? I didn't take no stereo?!"
He was stripped of all of them from the record books.
:p
When I ran track in highschool the best I ever got was 11 seconds...sub 10 second 100 meter sprints are amazing to me.
I wonder why don't end up becoming a running back if really run that fast. I mean Emmet Smith isn't really that fast but was so successful.
Well for starters there is a difference in the kind of top end speed that world class 100/200 m guys get to and the necessary 40 yd times of NFL players. After that there are just a tremendous amount of variables involved in how one applies their speed in football or any contact sport. The university of texas had a RB by the name of charles who was a top notch sprinter. He was not so great between the tackles but when he got in the open field it was good night irene.
If Bolt would run for the New Orleans Saints, don't you think their chances of getting into division championship would be 100 times more likely?
Hell!! who could catch up with him!!
If Bolt was on roids I bet he could run like a 9.58 :-\
Quote:
Originally Posted by OumaFan
Well thats what im thinking.
Just a freak of nature, that was the best race of all time essentially with Tyson Gay running a 9.71 and Bolt running a truly ridiculous 9.58 and I don't know if it's going to get much better then that for Bolt. 9.58 is what they projected he would get if he kept running in Beijing using his turnover rate multiplied by the number of strides. Ludicrous stuff as I repeated last year only to be rebutted by the VERY ignorant Bilbo, Bolt is THE MAN. The best athlete on the planet no doubt about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amat
A lot of world records have been shattered lately, Michael Phelps did a lot of those, Roger Federrer is also considered the greatest now, Tiger Woods and also Michael Schumacher.
Technology has greatly contributed, the dawn of computer age makes the sport more competitive and at the competition is at the highest level, they can draw simulation and create a realistic scenario to beat any standing record.
Second is the advent of Sports medicine, Sports Nutritionist and Dietician. They played the role on how to boost stamina, endurance and reduce easy fatiguability. They make any human being super human in our standards.
______
of all the records surely this one has a limit to how low it can go ?!?
The record has fallen by roughly a second in the last 100 years. So in 400 years people will be running it in 5.5 seconds :-\
Bolt reckons he can do 9.4 before he is finished.
just checked online and seen that Florence Griffith-Joyner still holds the female record of 10.49 (by .16 of a second to second ever highest) that she set in 88. That has to be drugs...
And incidentally the second best time ever by a woman is Marion Jones also a druggie. After that the best time is 10.73.
Gay ran what would be an ATG time in 9.71 which in itself is fucking amazing. That's the best ever in history by .08 if Usain Bolt never exist and .08 is a pretty significant margin. 9.71 is .03 less then what Bolt did in Beijing.
For track's last 50 years at least the shorter stockier guys have been lended to the 100m dash. IMO if this record does fall it's to another guy who's 6'4 or above again. It's simply physically impossible for anyone else to turn their legs over fast enough to make up for the time Bolt is gaining, being 6'4 and having faster turnover then the shorter guys. Fucking unbelievable if this guy becomes a great starter it's all over. Have to feel bad for Gay and also Asafa Powell who finally came out and ran a great race on a big stage and was upended.
I know H follows track and maybe knew about him before me as he was an underachiever at 200m but it is amazing how this guy Bolt has just come out of absolutely nowhere to become the most dominant athlete in sports. I think he went to Beijing having ran less then 10 times in the 100m.
The reason he ran that fast? If you had this chasin you, you'd be motoring too!
http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/u...9/2ndplace.jpg
What did I do?Quote:
Originally Posted by amat
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.
Just googled, a greyhound can go under 5.3 seconds :-\
They would also slaughter a human over every distance up to 10 miles, and other breeds of dogs could slaughter us in endurance events beyond that.
There ain't an animal alive that can beat me in chess though :cool:
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 got that right. from the wiki article...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark TKO
Before the 1988 season, Griffith Joyner's best 100 meter time was 10.96 seconds. In 1988 she improved that by 0.47 seconds, a time that no one has approached since. Similarly, her pre-1988 best at 200 meters was 21.96. In 1988 she improved that by 0.62 seconds to 21.34...
btw, 1988 was not her first Olympics.
Also I remember seeing pre 1988 pictures of her, and the difference in the musculature of her thighs was dramatic.
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... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboWhat did I do?Quote:
Originally Posted by amat
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamGBBilbo 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... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboWhat did I do?Quote:
Originally Posted by amat
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.
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)
Anyway I'm only being argumentative for Amat's sake..
Bilbo you're the only fag worried about how fast animals run. Instead of watching boxing you should begin to watch dogfighting and instead of boxing and maybe Jack Hannah instead of the Olympics.
And why did I neg rep you? Because you are always wrong. Go click the Bolt thread on the bottom of the page, go look how consistently wrong you were and how right on I was. I brought u the suits which are now BANNED in water and you still argued ignorantly. Go look seriously and if you're still feeling lucky maybe we can talk about Carl Froch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amat
Amat, a hobbit is never wrong, he is only misunderstood.
You god dam barstard! ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by X
I laughed so hard, i almost shat my self!! :o
http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...ld-record.html
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboWell 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamGBBilbo 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... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
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)
Anyway I'm only being argumentative for Amat's sake..
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.....Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamGBmate 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)Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboWell 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamGB
Anyway I'm only being argumentative for Amat's sake..
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... ;)
There's a monkey trail at edinborough zoo now...
THIS IS NO PLACE FOR A HOBBIT!