FARK.com: (7252826) Usain Bolt vs 116 years of Olympic sprinters. A very quick perspective (w/video)

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Usain Bolt vs 116 years of Olympic sprinters. A very quick perspective (w/video) (nytimes.com)		41
		More: Interesting, Usain, Olympic record, gold medals, gold

• • •

3871 clicks; posted to Sports » on 06 Aug 2012 at 8:47 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7252826

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

41 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

meehaw		2012-08-06 07:48:33 AM

That is a very, very cool video graphic.

slayer199		2012-08-06 08:00:24 AM

VERY cool stuff. Wonder how well he'd do if he was a great starter.

miss diminutive		2012-08-06 08:22:23 AM

Great find subby. I wonder how the previous world record holders would do if they were given access to today's technology and nutrition.

Cybernetic		2012-08-06 08:54:04 AM

Very cool.

Edward Tufte would be proud.

kudayta		2012-08-06 08:59:59 AM

slayer199: VERY cool stuff. Wonder how well he'd do if he was a great starter.

As I understand it, he's not a great starter (Bolt) because he's so tall. But he runs an overall fast race, because he's so tall. Which, until very recently, was considered impossible for a race as short as the 100m.

According to my father, the 100m isn't the best race for assessing the fastest human. He thinks it's the 200m, an event he ran very well in high school and college. I don't know if that's bias on his part or not though.

meyerkev		2012-08-06 09:00:27 AM

It's interesting to see the difference between this one, and the swimming one. The 1900 swimmer was like 40-50 meters back, while the runner is only 10.

JoeyJoJo		2012-08-06 09:12:55 AM

kudayta: According to my father, the 100m isn't the best race for assessing the fastest human. He thinks it's the 200m, an event he ran very well in high school and college. I don't know if that's bias on his part or not though.

i.factmonster.com

Is this your dad?

Boeheimian Rhapsody		2012-08-06 09:17:55 AM

wow... 3 seconds in 116 years. So 116 years from now could we even fathom someone running 100M in 6 seconds?

Cheesehead_Dave		2012-08-06 09:19:49 AM

These are very cool. Someone submitted the swimming one a few days ago. Check the bottom of the page, there's also one for the long jump.

bacongood		2012-08-06 09:32:44 AM

kudayta: slayer199: VERY cool stuff. Wonder how well he'd do if he was a great starter.

As I understand it, he's not a great starter (Bolt) because he's so tall. But he runs an overall fast race, because he's so tall. Which, until very recently, was considered impossible for a race as short as the 100m.

According to my father, the 100m isn't the best race for assessing the fastest human. He thinks it's the 200m, an event he ran very well in high school and college. I don't know if that's bias on his part or not though.

Top sprinters generally go faster in the second 100 of a 200 than they do in a pure 100. The running start is why. So if you want to go with "fastest 100", it will be the 200. If you want to go "fastest top speed", they will be about even as top speed is top speed and can be hit in both events.

But yeah, Bolt is great because his height gives him great top speed and reduces the number of strides he takes, but he has still been able to become a mediocre starter.

Benucio		2012-08-06 09:47:47 AM

According the commentator last night, it takes Bolt 41 steps to get to the finish line, compared to the other, shorter dudes who require 44.

ThaGravy		2012-08-06 09:51:58 AM

Boeheimian Rhapsody: wow... 3 seconds in 116 years. So 116 years from now could we even fathom someone running 100M in 6 seconds?

There was a big gap between the 1894 Athens contestants and the sprinters shortly after - most of that 3 second improvement was made by 1912. (Maybe the first Olympics didn't really have the best in the world since they were brand new?)

http://www.topendsports.com/sport/athletics/record-100m.htm

But if in 1912 the record was 10.6 and today Bolt can run it in 9.63 - that is about a 9.15% decrease in time. If we have the same 9.15% decrease in time over the next 100 years - that would put the best time around 8.75seconds. I won't be around to see it - but it seems possible.

//Bolt ran an average of 23.2mph... A time of 8.75 would be around 25.5mph

Mr Guy		2012-08-06 09:54:32 AM

bacongood: kudayta: slayer199: VERY cool stuff. Wonder how well he'd do if he was a great starter.

As I understand it, he's not a great starter (Bolt) because he's so tall. But he runs an overall fast race, because he's so tall. Which, until very recently, was considered impossible for a race as short as the 100m.

According to my father, the 100m isn't the best race for assessing the fastest human. He thinks it's the 200m, an event he ran very well in high school and college. I don't know if that's bias on his part or not though.

Top sprinters generally go faster in the second 100 of a 200 than they do in a pure 100. The running start is why. So if you want to go with "fastest 100", it will be the 200. If you want to go "fastest top speed", they will be about even as top speed is top speed and can be hit in both events.

But yeah, Bolt is great because his height gives him great top speed and reduces the number of strides he takes, but he has still been able to become a mediocre starter.

He could be a better starter, but it'll be difficult to convince him to put on the additional muscle he'd need to carry through his lower back in order to explode out of the blocks at his height. He'd need to add another 10 or 15 lbs of pure muscle to get up out of the blocks faster, and that's going to be a lot of work and a hard sell to the fastest man in the world. That's how someone's going to beat him though. It'd have to be a guy almost as tall, but stronger to consistently beat him.

joshiz		2012-08-06 10:09:09 AM

Cheesehead_Dave: These are very cool. Someone submitted the swimming one a few days ago. Check the bottom of the page, there's also one for the long jump.

Super cool. I love when info graphics are done well.

SanjiSasuke		2012-08-06 11:13:25 AM

ThaGravy: Boeheimian Rhapsody: wow... 3 seconds in 116 years. So 116 years from now could we even fathom someone running 100M in 6 seconds?

There was a big gap between the 1894 Athens contestants and the sprinters shortly after - most of that 3 second improvement was made by 1912. (Maybe the first Olympics didn't really have the best in the world since they were brand new?)

http://www.topendsports.com/sport/athletics/record-100m.htm

But if in 1912 the record was 10.6 and today Bolt can run it in 9.63 - that is about a 9.15% decrease in time. If we have the same 9.15% decrease in time over the next 100 years - that would put the best time around 8.75seconds. I won't be around to see it - but it seems possible.

//Bolt ran an average of 23.2mph... A time of 8.75 would be around 25.5mph

Actually Bolt's best time (Official, but not Olympic) is 9.58. Not much difference, just saying.

I like how the guy says 3 seconds like its nothing. That is about a quarter of a race.

consider this		2012-08-06 11:35:04 AM

Boeheimian Rhapsody: wow... 3 seconds in 116 years. So 116 years from now could we even fathom someone running 100M in 6 seconds?

I can't wait until they're doing it in less than a second in 330 years or so.

Yanks_RSJ		2012-08-06 12:01:58 PM

Boeheimian Rhapsody: wow... 3 seconds in 116 years. So 116 years from now could we even fathom someone running 100M in 6 seconds?

No. Since 1964, the Olympic record has "only" been reduced by .37 seconds. Since 1936, only .67. As time passes, the improvement has been increasingly gradual and it will obviously continue on that path.

consider this		2012-08-06 12:11:18 PM

8.99 seconds is the fastest time that will ever be possible in the 100m according to this guy.

Link

bacongood		2012-08-06 12:26:27 PM

kudayta: According to my father, the 100m isn't the best race for assessing the fastest human. He thinks it's the 200m, an event he ran very well in high school and college. I don't know if that's bias on his part or not though.

Because of the running start, most elite sprinters run the second 100 of the 200 faster than they can do the regular 100.

So if you want "fastest 100m", the 200 likely shows you that. If you want "fastest top speed", they are probably equal because top speed is top speed and you can hit it in either race.

skrame		2012-08-06 12:42:16 PM

In the graph below the video, why do some years (1904, 06, 08, 12, 20, etc.) not have all three medals? A few are missing silver, but others are missing gold or multiple medals.

Cisco-Kid		2012-08-06 01:08:09 PM

Boeheimian Rhapsody: wow... 3 seconds in 116 years. So 116 years from now could we even fathom someone running 100M in 6 seconds?

Doubtful, unless people start running differently.
topnews.in

5.95 seconds.

Lou Cypher		2012-08-06 01:09:24 PM

It's mentioned in passing at the end, but not enough credit is given to improvements in the track surface. We had an old rubberized track at our High School, the difference between that one and the ones used in meets was so great that the hurdlers were allowed access to the better track twice a week for practice. I ran the 110 High Hurdles and the same steps that worked at our home track had me smacking the hurdle with my lead foot on the stadium surface.

Scaevola		2012-08-06 02:38:39 PM

Lou Cypher: I ran the 110 High Hurdles and the same steps that worked at our home track had me smacking the hurdle with my lead foot on the stadium surface.

You have a lead foot? Well, that's part of your speed problem right there.

/Bet you can drive fast though.
//Try the veal, here all week.
///Sorry...

rufus-t-firefly		2012-08-06 02:52:49 PM

I ran a 12 sec 100m in high school (Class of '92).

I could have been an Olympic gold medalist if I had only been born a century earlier.

the_colonel		2012-08-06 02:56:09 PM

ThaGravy: Boeheimian Rhapsody: wow... 3 seconds in 116 years. So 116 years from now could we even fathom someone running 100M in 6 seconds?

There was a big gap between the 1894 Athens contestants and the sprinters shortly after - most of that 3 second improvement was made by 1912. (Maybe the first Olympics didn't really have the best in the world since they were brand new?)

http://www.topendsports.com/sport/athletics/record-100m.htm

But if in 1912 the record was 10.6 and today Bolt can run it in 9.63 - that is about a 9.15% decrease in time. If we have the same 9.15% decrease in time over the next 100 years - that would put the best time around 8.75seconds. I won't be around to see it - but it seems possible.

//Bolt ran an average of 23.2mph... A time of 8.75 would be around 25.5mph

Statring on a cinder track with no blocks will really slow the start and take a toll on times. I think the starting block wasn't allowed until 1948.

prickly pete v2		2012-08-06 03:01:12 PM

rufus-t-firefly: I ran a 12 sec 100m in high school (Class of '92).

I could have been an Olympic gold medalist if I had only been born a century earlier.

I ran 11.54, Class of '93. I benefited from better nutrition and technology, most likely.

WhyKnot		2012-08-06 03:22:20 PM

On a related topic, Bolt was doing an interview last night for a spanish station and actually interrupted the interview so that he was pay his respects to a separate medal ceremony. I thought it was very neat to see someone that could easily make everything about him, show respect to another competitor.

GreatGlavinsGhost		2012-08-06 05:07:14 PM

Does anyone know how women have done/will do?

/In b4 lmgtfy

Ishkur		2012-08-06 08:12:03 PM

The last stat is the most important: took us 100 years to shave off 3 seconds.
It'll probably take another 100 years to shave off 1.5 more.
And then another 100 years to shave off 0.75
(cf. law of diminishing returns)

And by the year 2400, sprinters will be trying to beat the 7 second barrier.

Harry_Seldon		2012-08-06 08:45:07 PM

Cisco-Kid: Boeheimian Rhapsody: wow... 3 seconds in 116 years. So 116 years from now could we even fathom someone running 100M in 6 seconds?

Doubtful, unless people start running differently.
[topnews.in image 269x338]
5.95 seconds.

Ask him how fast he can run 1500 meters?

Rozotorical		2012-08-06 08:53:39 PM

prickly pete v2: rufus-t-firefly: I ran a 12 sec 100m in high school (Class of '92).

I could have been an Olympic gold medalist if I had only been born a century earlier.

I ran 11.54, Class of '93. I benefited from better nutrition and technology, most likely.

Pfft I ran it in 9 flat.

Talking about minutes right?

John Buck 41		2012-08-06 09:29:56 PM

consider this: 8.99 seconds is the fastest time that will ever be possible in the 100m according to this guy.

Link

Awesome article. Thanks for posting it.

Bolt's race was the only Olympic event I have watched. I occasionally check some results online and skim USA Today's coverage, but as far as actually watching an event, that's been it. So far, it's all I've cared about.

//not that anyone gives a fark

John Buck 41		2012-08-06 09:34:44 PM

rufus-t-firefly: I ran a 12 sec 100m in high school (Class of '92).

I could have been an Olympic gold medalist if I had only been born a century earlier.

600 yard dash (indoor track) in 1:18. High school 1975. I don't think it's even run anymore (at least in Maine). It was a brutal race. Too short to jog, too long to sprint.

Harry_Seldon		2012-08-06 10:05:30 PM

John Buck 41: rufus-t-firefly: I ran a 12 sec 100m in high school (Class of '92).

I could have been an Olympic gold medalist if I had only been born a century earlier.

600 yard dash (indoor track) in 1:18. High school 1975. I don't think it's even run anymore (at least in Maine). It was a brutal race. Too short to jog, too long to sprint.

Yards? Get back to your lawn maintenance.

John Buck 41		2012-08-06 10:23:29 PM

Harry_Seldon: John Buck 41: rufus-t-firefly: I ran a 12 sec 100m in high school (Class of '92).

I could have been an Olympic gold medalist if I had only been born a century earlier.

600 yard dash (indoor track) in 1:18. High school 1975. I don't think it's even run anymore (at least in Maine). It was a brutal race. Too short to jog, too long to sprint.

Yards? Get back to your lawn maintenance.

That's how it was measured in 1975. Get the fark over it.

mc_madness		2012-08-06 10:27:52 PM

prickly pete v2: rufus-t-firefly: I ran a 12 sec 100m in high school (Class of '92).

I could have been an Olympic gold medalist if I had only been born a century earlier.

I ran 11.54, Class of '93. I benefited from better nutrition and technology, most likely.

I ran 10.64, Class of '98. I benefited from having a huge schlong.

I sound fat		2012-08-06 11:55:41 PM

mc_madness: prickly pete v2: rufus-t-firefly: I ran a 12 sec 100m in high school (Class of '92).

I could have been an Olympic gold medalist if I had only been born a century earlier.

I ran 11.54, Class of '93. I benefited from better nutrition and technology, most likely.

I ran 10.64, Class of '98. I benefited from having a huge schlong.

I ran 5.76, Class of '24. I benefited from dementia and failing grasp of reality

Harry_Seldon		2012-08-07 12:59:44 AM

USAIN BOLT!!

BobNesta420		2012-08-07 01:05:47 AM

I'm surprised at the lack of suspicion regarding Usain Bolt and his ridiculous times. Whenever anyone is that dominant over their competitors, it seems natural that people would be openly wondering about the legitimacy of that accomplishment. But Bolt seems to be immune to that. Maybe it's because of his personality or because he's just so exciting to watch, but it's kind of surprising to see how little people talk about PEDs and Bolt.

Harry_Seldon		2012-08-07 01:32:33 AM

BobNesta420: Maybe it's because of his personality or because he's just so exciting to watch, but it's kind of surprising to see how little people talk about PEDs and Bolt.

He is a freak of nature, and damn entertaining to watch.

Ishkur		2012-08-07 04:05:58 AM

BobNesta420: I'm surprised at the lack of suspicion regarding Usain Bolt and his ridiculous times. Whenever anyone is that dominant over their competitors, it seems natural that people would be openly wondering about the legitimacy of that accomplishment. But Bolt seems to be immune to that. Maybe it's because of his personality or because he's just so exciting to watch, but it's kind of surprising to see how little people talk about PEDs and Bolt.

That's because there is a physical, genetic reason why he's that good: He's freakishly tall, with long legs. No one that tall should be able to move their legs that fast, yet there he is. Michael Phelps is in the same position: His arms are actually misproportionately longer than most people with his body type... about 3 inches on each tip, giving him a 6" wingspan advantage over his competitors. It makes all the difference in the pool.

It's a given now that since the perfect body type for sprinting has been uncovered, the goal should not be to find guys who can move their legs the fastest, but rather find freakishly tall guys who can move their legs relatively fast. 41 strides vs. 44 strides means a full tenth of a second better. Every time he races. The only thing he needs to improve is his start.

Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.