Bolt's 9.58 100m World Record

Off Topic
21

[quote]OldDirtyCracker wrote:
belligerent wrote:
polo77j wrote:
Get this … this fat tool I work with said that “that seems slow.” So I asked him, “Have you ever sprinted a 100m before?” He mumbled some shit and I loudly mumbled tool…it was funny

Having been a track fan since 1996, I am no longer impressed with human running ability. Bolt is only about 10-15% faster than me, and I’m nothing. When I watch elite sprinters on the track, it’s not visually impressive to me anymore. Humans aren’t meant to run. Have you ever seen a gazelle run? Now that’s fucking FAST. Usain Bolt, not so much.

Honest question: Can a gazelle cover 26 miles faster than a human? Not arguing sprint speed but when you say “not meant to run” period I feel like I read somewhere we’re the best distance runners on the planet.
I can’t vouch for this site or professor “Pepe” but this is basically what I thought:
http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2006/07/follow_up_physical_comparison_1.html

[/quote]

A horse with a rider would crush a human over 26 miles let alone just a horse. I think humans run fairly well regardless, but it’s not our strength. I am or rather was, above average fast in HS, and I got crushed by the elite in HS, a college elite runner would crush a HS elite (99%) and an olympic elite runner would crush a college elite runner. Belligerant is just being a poop head. Bolt is the fastest human who has ever lived to this point. I would also pay good money to see him Juice in his prime (now?) just to see what the human body is truly capable of.

V

22

Vegita says “No”, but I have seen on the science channel that part of the human’s ability to survive better than a neanderthal was the fact that humans would chase prey for hours on end until the prey collapsed or died of exhaustion. They would literally run after prey for a hundred miles nonstop.

23

[quote]ucallthatbass wrote:
Vegita says “No”, but I have seen on the science channel that part of the human’s ability to survive better than a neanderthal was the fact that humans would chase prey for hours on end until the prey collapsed or died of exhaustion. They would literally run after prey for a hundred miles nonstop.[/quote]

100 miles? Considering that marathons are about 27 miles, I doubt that. We outlived Neanderthal’s because we were more intelligent.

Cavemen didn’t run after prey. They ambushed them or were scavengers.

24

[quote]Reef wrote:
ucallthatbass wrote:
Vegita says “No”, but I have seen on the science channel that part of the human’s ability to survive better than a neanderthal was the fact that humans would chase prey for hours on end until the prey collapsed or died of exhaustion. They would literally run after prey for a hundred miles nonstop.

100 miles? Considering that marathons are about 27 miles, I doubt that. We outlived Neanderthal’s because we were more intelligent.

Cavemen didn’t run after prey. They ambushed them or were scavengers.[/quote]

Yea, I have to agree here, As a former distance runner I have logged a few 26+ mile runs. At the end of a 26 mile run, the only way I’m getting prey is if it actually and literally collapsed. That would also assume I could keep it within my sights for the entire 26 mile run.

V

25

[quote]Reef wrote:
ucallthatbass wrote:
Vegita says “No”, but I have seen on the science channel that part of the human’s ability to survive better than a neanderthal was the fact that humans would chase prey for hours on end until the prey collapsed or died of exhaustion. They would literally run after prey for a hundred miles nonstop.

100 miles? Considering that marathons are about 27 miles, I doubt that. We outlived Neanderthal’s because we were more intelligent.

Cavemen didn’t run after prey. They ambushed them or were scavengers.[/quote]

There is also quite a difference between a marathon runner today and a human from 10,000 years ago chasing a fucking gazelle so he can eat for the first time in a week. I didn’t same they were timing the chase, I said they ran for hours on end. Plus, I was quoting a show I watched which said humans are better suited for very long distance running over sprinting, it is not my opinion.

26

[quote]ucallthatbass wrote:
Reef wrote:
ucallthatbass wrote:
Vegita says “No”, but I have seen on the science channel that part of the human’s ability to survive better than a neanderthal was the fact that humans would chase prey for hours on end until the prey collapsed or died of exhaustion. They would literally run after prey for a hundred miles nonstop.

100 miles? Considering that marathons are about 27 miles, I doubt that. We outlived Neanderthal’s because we were more intelligent.

Cavemen didn’t run after prey. They ambushed them or were scavengers.

There is also quite a difference between a marathon runner today and a human from 10,000 years ago chasing a fucking gazelle so he can eat for the first time in a week. I didn’t same they were timing the chase, I said they ran for hours on end. Plus, I was quoting a show I watched which said humans are better suited for very long distance running over sprinting, it is not my opinion.

[/quote]

Humans weren’t really built for either. Compare our leg bones. The smaller the femur is to the tibia and fibula, the faster an animal can run. Humans rely on intelligence. Sure, we can run, but that’s when we ambush. Any prey that has speed can out run us. We, humans, are smart enough to follow it and kill it. We are not fast enough to chase an animal for 100miles.

27

[quote]belligerent wrote:
horsepuss wrote:
When and if he tops out and cant run any faster I would like to see him hit the juice hard and break into the 8 second mark.

But I know that wont happen.

The reason a man will never run under 9 flat is because his bones would shatter mid-stance if he applied enough force to the ground to run 30mph.[/quote]

When my sister was in college she was a sports trainer and she said there was this guy who was all huge and ripped, One of those guys who just have freaky genetics.Well he was at the track one day sprinting and he actually broke his femur because his muscles were contracted so hard from sprinting.

So I can see what your saying.

28

[quote]ukrainian wrote:
ucallthatbass wrote:
Reef wrote:
ucallthatbass wrote:
Vegita says “No”, but I have seen on the science channel that part of the human’s ability to survive better than a neanderthal was the fact that humans would chase prey for hours on end until the prey collapsed or died of exhaustion. They would literally run after prey for a hundred miles nonstop.

100 miles? Considering that marathons are about 27 miles, I doubt that. We outlived Neanderthal’s because we were more intelligent.

Cavemen didn’t run after prey. They ambushed them or were scavengers.

There is also quite a difference between a marathon runner today and a human from 10,000 years ago chasing a fucking gazelle so he can eat for the first time in a week. I didn’t same they were timing the chase, I said they ran for hours on end. Plus, I was quoting a show I watched which said humans are better suited for very long distance running over sprinting, it is not my opinion.

Humans weren’t really built for either. Compare our leg bones. The smaller the femur is to the tibia and fibula, the faster an animal can run. Humans rely on intelligence. Sure, we can run, but that’s when we ambush. Any prey that has speed can out run us. We, humans, are smart enough to follow it and kill it. We are not fast enough to chase an animal for 100miles. [/quote]

Humans can outrun an animal over distance. Native Americans and tribes in Africa would do just that. The only animal that can cover more distance in one day, potentially, is a polar bear. I have heard of another that can as well but i forgot what it was, a certain type of antelope or something. Kind of hard to get a grasp of, but it is true from what i have seen.

We humans are very efficient long distance runners. This does not mean that any human can get up and cover more distance in day than an animal, but potentially we can.

I actually have personal experience with this, although it does not relate directly. When backpacking going over 2 passes a day, i can outdistance horseback riders. I will cover 25 or more miles in one day with a pack on my back, while horseback riders have trouble covering 20. Not exactly the same, but kind of makes you think.

29

[quote]OldDirtyCracker wrote:
belligerent wrote:
polo77j wrote:
Get this … this fat tool I work with said that “that seems slow.” So I asked him, “Have you ever sprinted a 100m before?” He mumbled some shit and I loudly mumbled tool…it was funny

Having been a track fan since 1996, I am no longer impressed with human running ability. Bolt is only about 10-15% faster than me, and I’m nothing. When I watch elite sprinters on the track, it’s not visually impressive to me anymore. Humans aren’t meant to run. Have you ever seen a gazelle run? Now that’s fucking FAST. Usain Bolt, not so much.

Honest question: Can a gazelle cover 26 miles faster than a human? Not arguing sprint speed but when you say “not meant to run” period I feel like I read somewhere we’re the best distance runners on the planet.
I can’t vouch for this site or professor “Pepe” but this is basically what I thought:
http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2006/07/follow_up_physical_comparison_1.html

[/quote]

Humans are not the best distance runners on the planet, except maybe at obscene/retarded disances like ultramarathons.

30

[quote]ntr wrote:
belligerent wrote:
horsepuss wrote:
When and if he tops out and cant run any faster I would like to see him hit the juice hard and break into the 8 second mark.

But I know that wont happen.

The reason a man will never run under 9 flat is because his bones would shatter mid-stance if he applied enough force to the ground to run 30mph.

In his latest WR run he had a 0.8 second 10 meter section at top speed, which is about 28mph, if he were to do a flying 30m or something in training with a more relaxed lead in than he had in that race, he would be capable of getting closer to 30 right now. If he is able to get any faster than he is now, he might hit 30mph in another 100m race in the near future.[/quote]

He’s actually closer to 27.3 or 27.4 mph. 28 is impossible and 30 would probably kill a person.

31

[quote]ntr wrote:
Jumping and running both depend on the elasticity of the tendons and the power which can be produced by the muscles. Someone with a lot of bounce and a large difference between running and standing vert, like early career MJ, would have very elastic tendons, while someone with little difference would be someone who relies mainly on muscular strength, like olympic lifter Pyrros Dimas, who’s not a jumper but has an impressive vert.

Concentric strength is most important at the beginning of the 100m, but the middle and end rely more on tendon elasticity. (how someone like carl lewis, who was comparatively weak and didn’t lift weights can still be fast)[/quote]

this is good

32

USAINE CRNI SINE, Å TA JE OVO :smiley: