Reply to: Big strong athletes better than small weak ones

[Mich the Tester]

I thought that most sprinters were average height but powerfully built for explosive acceleration. Usain Bolt is the exception; nobody thought he would make a good sprinter because of his height. He usually doesn't start that well but his top speed is so much faster than everyone else that by about half way he's way out in the lead.

The best sprinters tend to be slightly taller than average; obviously there are exceptions. As for their build, don't be decieved by the TV pictures, which make people look bigger than they are; if you meet top sprinters you'll see that they're actually quite slim, but obviously they have very little body fat and their muscles are very well defined. They're relatively heavy simply because there is so much muscle and so little fat. Linford Christie is about 6ft 3 in, and was around 13 stone at his best; he looked huge on TV, but if you went to an athletics meet and saw him, he actually appeared quite slim.

As for Bolt, his problem waas similar to that of Christie; coordination at the start of a race. Christie had a tendency to push his body from side to side in the first few paces, losing time doing so. Bolt struggled for a while to coordinate the power from his long legs and went all over the place for the first 20m; once Christie got all his strength going in the right direction he started winning and could take advantage of his long strides; same goes for Bolt; his big improvement came from coordination, perhas partly through well considered training, but also physical maturity. Remember that 100m is actually won and lost in the second half of the race when the runners actually start to slow down a little; you can only hold absolute top speed for 1 or 2 seconds; the guy who's able to hold his speed best is the winner, and if the tall guys are there or thereabouots at 60m they'll tend to hold on to their speed well as their long paces make it easier; the little guys have to keep powering through while the tall guys use long paces and momentum to slow down less than the others.

[TimberWolf]

I a 'high heels / stilleto' sprint race on ?ITN? news this morning. The winner was the tallest.

I would like to see mechanical assisted racing, where anything mechanical is allowed barring pre-stored energy (whether in springs, batteries or fuels). E.g. bikes versus those feet springy things versus other as yet uninvented devices that could harness all major muscle groups simultaneously, etc. Held over various distances. Presumably bikes would be carp over 100m.

[threaded]

I thought that most sprinters were average height but powerfully built for explosive acceleration. Usain Bolt is the exception; nobody thought he would make a good sprinter because of his height. He usually doesn't start that well but his top speed is so much faster than everyone else that by about half way he's way out in the lead.

I a 'high heels / stilleto' sprint race on ?ITN? news this morning. The winner was the tallest.

[Bunk]

Believe it or not, for sports scientists it’s quite interesting, although perhaps the conclusion appears obvious to others; it confirms something I’ve thought for a long time. Look at the sprint events; lots of people suggest that it’s always going to be black athletes winning, because mostly black athletes have won the 100 since the war; all sorts of theories abound as to the genetic reasons for this. What people appear to have missed though is that it’s nearly always the tallest athlete who wins the race; Bolt, Bailey, Christie, Lewis and Wells were all 6ft+ and the tallest men in the race. So when scouting for the sprinters of the future, perhaps sports coaches should take a bit more notice of height and care a little less about ´race´. Tall runners have long legs and their skeletons offer plenty of room for developing large muscles without the leg muscles getting in each others´ way. The german hurdler Florian Swarthoff, who rivalled Colin Jackson as the best of his time, was a very tall man who ran 13.05 for the 110 hurdles. His 10.57 PB for the 100m would not indicate an ability to run a time like that over hurdles; the problem for a tall sprinter is coordination; sort out the coordination and he’ll gain metres; that’s what happened with Usain Bolt; he sorted his coordination out and improved by half a second in a couple of years.

Obviously there’ll always be exceptions, but a good big guy will usually beat a good little guy.

I thought that most sprinters were average height but powerfully built for explosive acceleration. Usain Bolt is the exception; nobody thought he would make a good sprinter because of his height. He usually doesn't start that well but his top speed is so much faster than everyone else that by about half way he's way out in the lead.

[threaded]

The researcher chappy says “In antiquity, body weights were roughly 70 per cent less than they are today,”

Were the Athenians and Romans really that small? Little two foot tall guys weighing 4 stone?
I'll tell you what; a two foot tall man running a 14 second 100 metres would be, inch for inch, phenomenal. Think what a 6 ft Athenian could have done!

I think not; did he actually say 17 percent and the journalist didn’t care to think about what he’d written down?

Here's a paper on the subject.
Which is bodies they've dug up, and measured.

[TimberWolf]

A cheetah is faster than a lion, say, but the question here is, is a bigger cheetah faster than a smaller cheetah, and a bigger lion faster than a smaller lion?

You must not confuse intra-population comparisons with inter-population comparisons. Otherwise you will come up with true but unhelpful observations, like the negative correlation between shoe size and longevity: it looks like a foot difference but really it's a gender difference.

A cheetah is a fast lion. A lighter, faster lion. If you want to stay within species, look at dogs or race horses that are selected for speed.

[Bagpuss]

The researcher chappy says “In antiquity, body weights were roughly 70 per cent less than they are today,”

Were the Athenians and Romans really that small? Little two foot tall guys weighing 4 stone?
I'll tell you what; a two foot tall man running a 14 second 100 metres would be, inch for inch, phenomenal. Think what a 6 ft Athenian could have done!

I think not; did he actually say 17 percent and the journalist didn’t care to think about what he’d written down?

Yeah 70% is bollocks, Journalists don't do numbers or science very well

[expat]

The fastest land animal is the cheetah, which is pretty light.

A cheetah is faster than a lion, say, but the question here is, is a bigger cheetah faster than a smaller cheetah, and a bigger lion faster than a smaller lion?

You must not confuse intra-population comparisons with inter-population comparisons. Otherwise you will come up with true but unhelpful observations, like the negative correlation between shoe size and longevity: it looks like a foot difference but really it's a gender difference.

[BrilloPad]

The fastest land animal is the cheetah, which is pretty light.

But its hardly small. You dont see many fast snails do you?

[xoggoth]

Those codpieces always looked like empty boasting to me.

[EternalOptimist]

Possibly "70% of what they are today"?

deffo.

I tried to get into an ancestors suit of armour. no way, it was way too tight


except in the kn0b department, there was plenty of room there for some obscure reason. must be a design fault

[TimberWolf]

The fastest land animal is the cheetah, which is pretty light.

[Mich the Tester]

Possibly "70% of what they are today"?

Sounds more like it.

[The Lone Gunman]

The researcher chappy says “In antiquity, body weights were roughly 70 per cent less than they are today,”

Were the Athenians and Romans really that small? Little two foot tall guys weighing 4 stone?
I'll tell you what; a two foot tall man running a 14 second 100 metres would be, inch for inch, phenomenal. Think what a 6 ft Athenian could have done!

I think not; did he actually say 17 percent and the journalist didn’t care to think about what he’d written down?

Possibly "70% of what they are today"?

[Mich the Tester]

The researcher chappy says “In antiquity, body weights were roughly 70 per cent less than they are today,”

Were the Athenians and Romans really that small? Little two foot tall guys weighing 4 stone?
I'll tell you what; a two foot tall man running a 14 second 100 metres would be, inch for inch, phenomenal. Think what a 6 ft Athenian could have done!

I think not; did he actually say 17 percent and the journalist didn’t care to think about what he’d written down?