Bolt blew it (Read 2037 times)


I've got a fever...

    I think they should go by chip time instead of gun time.  Then it doesn't matter when they start.

    On your deathbed, you won't wish that you'd spent more time at the office.  But you will wish that you'd spent more time running.  Because if you had, you wouldn't be on your deathbed.

      +1.  There may be some really fast sprinters out there that can't compete now because they have slow reactions.  If you take that out of the equation it becomes all about running fast. 

      As far as I'm concerned, the starting reaction time is A PART OF SPRINTING.  You can't turn around and say, well, I don't like hot weather so let's have a marathon in the winter Olympics...  Well, that ain't gonna happen.  Is it fair for someone like Bill Rodgers who hated a hot weather marathon?  It's not.  But then how far do you go to accommodate to everybody?  That French guy, Lemaitre, doesn't seem to have a good start.  So would you give him a rolling start because his reaction time is not as good and you want to make it "fair" for him?  Rediculous.  In fact, Bolt doesn't have a very good reaction time (usually).  But he's got GREAT acceleration.  Carl Lewis was the same too.  So what about people with poor acceleration like (old timer) Houstoon Mactire (spelling???)?  He coudn't even LAST 100m--he was great at 100 yard!!  Would you turn around and create a separate sprinting event like 100 yard or 90m just for people who can't last 100m? 

       

      100m sprint is from start to finish--that INCLUDES starting reaction time to the finish tape at 100m PERIOD.  Bolt screwed up and got DQed.  Robert Johnson is absolutely stupid to go so gong-ho about protecting his hero by calling the actual champ a faul.  I don't give a damn what he might do in his room with Bolt; that's his business.  But to come out on such a popular (unfortunately) website and publicly accuse the eventual winner and the officials is utter stupidity.

        As far as I'm concerned, the starting reaction time is A PART OF SPRINTING.  You can't turn around and say, well, I don't like hot weather so let's have a marathon in the winter Olympics...  Well, that ain't gonna happen.  Is it fair for someone like Bill Rodgers who hated a hot weather marathon?  It's not.  But then how far do you go to accommodate to everybody?  That French guy, Lemaitre, doesn't seem to have a good start.  So would you give him a rolling start because his reaction time is not as good and you want to make it "fair" for him?  Rediculous.  In fact, Bolt doesn't have a very good reaction time (usually).  But he's got GREAT acceleration.  Carl Lewis was the same too.  So what about people with poor acceleration like (old timer) Houstoon Mactire (spelling???)?  He coudn't even LAST 100m--he was great at 100 yard!!  Would you turn around and create a separate sprinting event like 100 yard or 90m just for people who can't last 100m? 

         

        100m sprint is from start to finish--that INCLUDES starting reaction time to the finish tape at 100m PERIOD.  Bolt screwed up and got DQed.  Robert Johnson is absolutely stupid to go so gong-ho about protecting his hero by calling the actual champ a faul.  I don't give a damn what he might do in his room with Bolt; that's his business.  But to come out on such a popular (unfortunately) website and publicly accuse the eventual winner and the officials is utter stupidity.

         

        This is a classic piece of message board argumentation. It begins with a strawman, the main claim is simply asserted without argument, and it ends with a digression.

         

        Well done, Nobby!

        xor


          I'm not a big fan of sprinting, but I agree with Nobby.

           

          I am also going to incorporate the 'gong-ho' derivation into my vocabulary because it is an absolutely cool word (I am being sincere).

           

            I'm not a big fan of sprinting, but I agree with Nobby.

             

            I am also going to incorporate the 'gong-ho' derivation into my vocabulary because it is an absolutely cool word (I am being sincere).

            ...and there was a very good movie with that name as well (however, we do NOT take a bath in the river). 


            Fat butt on couch

              Yes, that's the primary change. Sprinters would time the start, not react to the gun. It would change the event slightly, but I also believe this system or one like what Mikey proposed (which would have precisely the same issue) would do a lot to resolve the problem at hand, which is how to create a system where people don't just false start forever or get disqualified the first time they jump.

               

              I guess I see the 100m as answering the question of who's the fastest runner over 100m. You need a fair start that creates equality in order to answer that question. 

               

              The current system is perfectly fair.  It penalizes people who try to gain an unfair advantage by leaving the blocks early.  Under your system, the advantage would go to whoever is willing to cut it closest without going under.  It's the same exact issue, only requires a fundamental change to the sport to accomplish it.

              "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

               

                The current system is perfectly fair.  It penalizes people who try to gain an unfair advantage by leaving the blocks early.  Under your system, the advantage would go to whoever is willing to cut it closest without going under.  It's the same exact issue, only requires a fundamental change to the sport to accomplish it.

                 

                A fundamental change sounds really bad to make. But calling a change "fundamental" doesn't make it so. An argument must be supplied (sorry.) Before we had the technology to measure reaction times, sprinters could "time" the gun. But we eliminated this element of starting. By your logic, this was a fundamental change, but it passed unnoticed.

                 

                I can see the way in which a certain type of purist wouldn't want to take the human element away from starts. But this human element is exactly what's leading to this false start problem. So, we have a choice: either stay with the false start problem or remove the human element from starting. In my opinion, regularizing the start wouldn't fundamentally change the 100m race (which in the end, fundamentally, is about speed over 100m, not human ability to react to a gun) and it would go pretty far to solve the problem with false starts..

                  It's fair in that everyone has to deal with the same system, sure.  But just because a system is fair doesn't mean it's a good system or that it shouldn't be improved.

                   

                  The zero-tolerance rule seems a bit harsh to me and a lot of other track fans, especially in light of the fact that it appears Bolt reacted to the twitch by Blake and wasn't trying to leave early or time the gun.  The irregular amount of time taken by starters between set and gun seems to create an unnecessarily difficult situation for the athletes and may contribute to false starts as well.

                   

                  It seems reasonable for fans of track and field to discuss how these two situations might be improved.

                  Runners run.


                  jules2

                    Brings new meaning to the expression " Bolt from the blew blue"Clown

                    Old age is when you move from illegal to prescribed drugs.


                    Fat butt on couch

                       (which in the end, fundamentally, is about speed over 100m, not human ability to react to a gun)

                       

                      Calling this "fundamental" does not make it so.  Not being argumentative, just pointing out that one may just as easily say it's fundamentally about going gun to line as fast as possible...which includes the start.

                       

                      We cannot "remove the human element" from the start...are we going to remove the human element from the rest of the race then?  Only count from 50m onwards so we remove the human element varying how long it takes to reach top speed? 

                       

                      I don't think anything about the current process is unfair, and utilizes technology that will never be fully perfect to a sophisticated level.  I think it's all about the application.  As Mikey said, as zero tolerance rules typically do it creates a big problem.  The other solutions used over the years each have their own problems.  So which set of problems do we like best? 

                       

                      Drag car lights don't change that.  As any drag racer, it all becomes about timing the light.  Some sprinter will clock in as starting at 0.001sec after the gun...which means he really started to go significantly before the race actually started.  That doesn't seem fair to me at all.  You'd end up with races where the whole field reacts faster than is physically possible....ie they are all really starting at different times, BEFORE the race actually does.  You could retire Bolt's WR because a comparison would be invalid after such a change.

                      "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

                       

                        You could retire Bolt's WR because a comparison would be invalid after such a change.

                         

                        this is why wide recievers run 4.36 in the 40 for the NFL combine.  the clock is started on first movement.  so the start is flipped around and the clock only goes after the runner moves. 

                        In an infinite universe, the one thing sentient life cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion

                        http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white&fb_source=message

                         

                         

                         





                          Good arguments, spaniel. The article you linked notes that the best reaction times are 0.12 seconds. So this is the gain you would see. It's not insignificant, maybe on par with moving from a dirt track to the space-age mondo we've got now. The world record would definitely speed up. But isn't this about creating a fair RACE, not assuring world-record equivalencies (which are always arguable with wind and what-all).

                           

                          I'll just add that the problem with the drag-racing scenario is not its unfairness, it's that it requires a different skill (timing the gun, vs reacting to the gun.) Opposing this idea puts you in the position of saying that the skill of reacting to a gun is more fundamental to 100m racing than the skill of timing a gun. Neither seem particularly relevant to me, so I'll go with the one that creates fewer problems.


                          Fat butt on couch

                            But isn't this about creating a fair RACE, not assuring world-record equivalencies (which are always arguable with wind and what-all).

                             

                            I would say a fair race is where we don't allow people to start before the actual start of the race...level playing field.  Maybe I missed it, what is so unfair about the current process?  And I'm not talking about the zero tolerance rule, that's another issue.

                            "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

                             

                              I would say a fair race is where we don't allow people to start before the actual start of the race...level playing field.  Maybe I missed it, what is so unfair about the current process?  And I'm not talking about the zero tolerance rule, that's another issue.

                               

                              The current rule is fair, but it creates a problem (I think) with false starts. Remember the zero tolerance rule was implemented as a solution to a different problem with false starts. I think the problem could be solved not by a rule but by a different starting practice. (see above)

                               

                              (I also addressed your concern about the unfairness of starting before the gun in my prior post. This would be unfair when comparing world records, but it would still create a situation of fairness within the race.)

                               

                              I think I've said just about everything there is to say about this. I didn't really realize that I was such a passionate advocate of this system when I first started with this thread. Huh.

                              JimR


                                The current rule is fair, but it creates a problem (I think) with false starts. Remember the zero tolerance rule was implemented as a solution to a different problem with false starts. I think the problem could be solved not by a rule but by a different starting practice. (see above)

                                 

                                The rule would still need to be there, otherwise false starts would become even more commonplace.