Bolt blew it (Read 2037 times)

    So this seems to me like an interesting question -- not sure if it can be debated rationally, or if  it is more of an axiomatic issue -- is the race about who can react fastest to an unknown start time and get to the finish line, or who can accelerate fastest and get  to the finish line?

     

    How do they start swim events?

     

    I think swim meets are the same way - start on a sound, first to touch the wall wins.  What are the false start rules in swimming?  (I vote no false starts, they just let a shark out.)

     

    Based on the way the current rules are, it would appear that there are 2 primary components; who can react fastest to an unknown start and who can cover the distance in the least amount of time.  Both of those factors play a role in who can cross the finish line first. 

     

    Either of those components could be isolated from the other, but I don't see flying-100 or some arbitrary reaction test game are more interesting by themselves as the 100 is now. 


    HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

      Course, there are three legs of the 4x100 where the guys (or gals) get to run "flying 100" Smile

      It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

        Course, there are three legs of the 4x100 where the guys (or gals) get to run "flying 100" Smile

         

        Or the slower goober in the middle that gets to run a flying 85.  But hand offs make the 4x100 so much more awesomer.

         

        MTA:

        I don't think three legs would help much. Not as much as only having one would, anyways. 

          If this was anybody else but Bolt, no one would even be talking about this. He false started, it was his fault, end of story.

             He false started, it was his fault, end of story.

             

            Right.  He needs to go back to training his mind to focus on the sound of the start, not any movement.

            There was a point in my life when I ran. Now, I just run.

             

            Well, fuckers

            He still stands

             

            The Diary of a Once-ran.


              You'll ruin your knees!

                How do they start swim events?

                 Who cares, this is a running site!  and...

                 

                More analysis on the Bolt/Blake issue. Kinda cool.

                 

                 ... really? 

                ""...the truth that someday, you will go for your last run. But not today—today you got to run." - Matt Crownover (after Western States)


                Feeling the growl again

                  Seems to me it was much ado about nothing then.

                  "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                   

                    Seems to me it was much ado about nothing then.

                     

                    Yeah, as someone said, Bolt needs to retrain to start at the sound of the gun.  Or, as the OP said, "Bolt blew it."  Maybe OP was trolling.

                    Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject.

                      Seems to me it was much ado about nothing then.

                       

                      Yup.  Nothing at all except the fastest man in the world false starting out of the final.

                      Runners run.

                      xor


                        5 pages in.  I wanted to post an "explosive bolt" picture.  But I didn't want some people to get mad at me.

                         

                          I don't think there is really much of a difference between one-for-the-field and zero-tolerance in false starts.  From what I remember from running track, if there was a free false start to be had, it was taken.  Either you were trying to get a better start and jumped the gun or you knew you had a free one to burn and jumped it on purpose.  The net result is the same; typically someone burned the free false start.  At that point the race became a one-and-done and you cut the shenanigans.

                          Under the old first-one-charged-to-the-field rule, a slow starter could deliberately false-start to his benefit: now everyone was "sticky" in the blocks, as the next false-starter was DQ'ed.  You could game the system to neutralize an opponent's strong starting skills that way.  IMO, the overall rule is effectively the same, but now the opportunity to game the system has been removed.

                           

                          The 100m has a start and a finish in between its "running fast" portion. The ability to react to a starting command and to lean effectively have long been fundamental skills required to race the 100m.  I'm opposed to any rule change that would remove them.  Especially if the reason is so that big-names don't get tossed by virtue of their own racing mistakes.

                          “Everything you need is already inside.” -- Bill Bowerman


                          HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                            I was just watching some Tom Lehr videos on youtube. Probably Bolt just needs more mathematics.

                            It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.


                            You'll ruin your knees!

                              Yeah, as someone said, Bolt needs to retrain to start at the sound of the gun. 

                               

                              ...or change his tactic from super fast start to sit'n kick.

                              ""...the truth that someday, you will go for your last run. But not today—today you got to run." - Matt Crownover (after Western States)

                                 The ability to react to a starting command and to lean effectively have long been fundamental skills required to race the 100m.  I'm opposed to any rule change that would remove them.  Especially if the reason is so that big-names don't get tossed by virtue of their own racing mistakes.

                                 

                                Everyone keeps saying that reacting to the gun is a "fundamental skill" in racing 100m. Yes, it has always been an important skill, but it seems very difficult to argue that this is a fundamental skill in racing 100m. In fact, the best 100m runner we've ever seen (Bolt) isn't that great at reacting to the gun. So, (as everyone knows by now) I just don't buy this argument. In fact, this point is never argued; it's just asserted as if it is totally obvious, and my suspicion is that it is treated this way precisely because the only argument for it is something like "we've always done it this way."

                                 

                                Isn't the "fundamental skill" running fast? Don't we call the winner of the 100m "the fastest man alive," not "the best reactor to a starting command?" (In fact, this is why, historically, runners have been given multiple chances to get the start right--the very reason the false start was invented was to minimize the effect that reactions have on determining the outcome of the race.)

                                 

                                Think of it this way: if sprinters were allowed to time the gun, would your experience of watching the race be fundamentally altered? Wouldn't we still say the winner was the fastest man alive?

                                 

                                I have given a ton of reasons to change the system, none of them were about preserving big names. All of them were about eliminating what many see as a problem, which is the relative overabundance of false starts caused by overemphasis on a skill (reacting to a gun) that is irrelevant to what the race is about (running fast.) 

                                 

                                By the way, I have never said that Bolt shouldn't have been DQ'd, and I agree that it was HIS error.

                                 

                                I keep replying to this thread because I have made a ton of arguments, and every single time they have been argued against, the position has been misconstrued and none of my reasons have been engaged.

                                 

                                Also, srlopez, please feel free to drop absurd jokes into this thread, per your usual behavior. I won't get mad at you.