Round Wind RT t200m t100m Diff. t100-200m t150m t0-50m t50-100m t100-150m t150-200m
Bolt Usain JAM Fi -0,3 0,133 19,19 9,92 -0,65 9,27 14,44 5,60 4,32 4,52 4,75
Dazed
Without a doubt, I can.
According to the above posted splits Bolt did 9.92 (being tired from the rounds mind you) and 14.44.
If we remember that he did 14.35 in Manchester this is giving us an indication that Bolt could go faster then 14.44 or 14.35 when in peak condition. I reckon he can go 14.10-14.15 over 150m. If so and with 1.5-1.9 m/s tail wind deduct another .20-.30 to his time. And if he runs the first 100m in 9.85 (which he can easy) we will be looking at substantial sub 19 with or without Gay behind him. Gay can not get close to Bolt in the 200m
As I said, in peak form, one race only, ideal weather conditions and especially if Gay is in the race, Bolt will fly.
In respect to distance between Gay and Bolt, if Gay was to run his best 200m I think he can get down to 19.35-19.40 (chasing Bolt) - so perhaps it would give Bolt 6-7-8m winning margin.
Negatives
- 8th race
- head wind
- did not specifically train for the 200m
- no Gay in the race
- perhaps the track to certain degree
Turn this into;
- 1 race only
- 1.5-1.9m/s tail wind
- train for the 200m as well
- Gay in it
- fast track
- good financial incentive
RESULT - an amazing time!
BBC news;
Bolt set a time of 19.19 seconds to demolish the previous record of 19.30 he set in winning Olympic gold last summer in Beijing.
The 22-year-old finished well clear of the field, with silver medallist Alonso Edward finishing in 19.81.
Wallace Spearmon of the United States took bronze.
Bolt, who also smashed the 100m record in Berlin on Sunday, is now the first man to hold the 100 and 200m world and Olympic titles at the same time.
And, the first ever to break WRs in the 100m and the 200m events in the two consecutive championships. I can not think of it right now but who was the last to hold WR in those two events at the same time? Plus, the fastest ever over 150m.
So, I guess 300m and 400m WR may be next (or a few years away) on his agenda.
Talking about GOAT - he is GOAT.
Wow, amazing…he did that with a headwind…He’s a freak of nature. It was expected of him, but he did it.
He broke records in the rain and made a 9.71 look easy.
He made 19.5 look easy in rain.
Yes, we wanted to see a sub19 but doing this into a headwind is amazing.
I think it’s a hell of a lot harder to run 100m around a curve than it is on the straight. I also think giving Bolt an outer lane will help lower his times. The reason I think this is he knows he will win, he’s so much faster than everyone anyway that he isn’t using people he can see to judge his pace, and this minimizes the effects of the curve.
In ‘The Lore of Running’ by Tim Noakes you’ll find various tables which have used different statistical methods(!) to predict the progression of performances over time and interestingly…ultimate performances for 100m to marathon. If my memory serves me well, the ultimate performance prediction for 400m was 39secs
Vabo, Mills is Usain’s coach from late 2004.
ops!
and why do press say mills was his coach after those bad years (many injuries)?
I’m sorry, but I just can’t see it. Not without a significant improvement in speed.
I don’t see all those as being negatives, you said it your self, Gay isn’t able to touch him, so I don’t see how he would make a difference, I don’t think training for the 100m and 200m has made that much of a difference and the track has turned out a plethora of PB’s, NR’s and SB’s across multiple events, regardless of what was thought of it pre-champs.
As has already been pointed out, the 150m in Manchester was on a 150m straight. Most estimates I have heard put the cost of the bend at roughly .3 over 100m. This would put Bolts curve at 9.88 based on the 100 - not that different to the 9.92 reported by the IAAF biomech team. His second 100 was 93.4% of his first; MJ’s was 90.9%, which would give Bolt with a 9.88 bend an 18.99. If Bolt were to match MJ’s speed maintenance, he would have to run a 9.77 (:.~9.47 for the 100m straight) on the bend (Asafa’s 100m WR only a couple of years ago), followed by an 8.88 (Fastest recorded relay split other than himself and Asafa, 3/10ths faster than MJ and a .44 second improvement on his own).
Regardless of the negative factors, I just don’t see him going near 18.6X.
BTW, I didn’t put 2 and 2 together before, but Jim Bradley owns the Jim Bradley speed-ball company, no wonder he’s keen on them for athletes!
I put the human limit in all sprints at .1 of a second - at least until the start rules change.
BTW, I didn’t put 2 and 2 together before, but Jim Bradley owns the Jim Bradley speed-ball company, no wonder he’s keen on them for athletes!
Exactly!
As for Bolt, not many people believed he could run 19.19 or 9.58. Even if you asked MJ he would have said (and he did say) that Bolt would not break the record again.
I respect your opinion but Bolt will prove soon enough that sub 19 is possible. We may speculate about what ifs etc. I reckon let’s just wait and see. I have been patiently waiting for 4 years to see first sub 19. Only .19 away, now!
Just to be clear, Jim Bradley does not own the JB Speedball Co. His name is just used as a figurehead.
I think he will go sub 19 eventually, I just think 18.65 is a little much to hope for - I simply can’t see a way for him to do it. If he runs under 9.45 I will say its not entirely improbable.
BTW can any one believe the numbers we are talking about here? I mean 9.5 seconds and 19.1 HOLY ISH.
From what I remember, he had another coach through 2004, suffered some injuries and imbalance…then met Mills, and he first solved the issues in 2005, then built the athlete…
The first thing Mills faced, was recovering him.
Dazed,
http://www.charliefrancis.com/community/showthread.php?t=21252
If you did not have a chance to read it. It may be of interest.
I have promised to the mods that I have finished with JB subject because obviously …well the reasons are self evident. I am not continuing this nor I am looking for a ban but
Hicksy I live less then 2km from JB 
And if you check my IP address it comes from Keilor area where the JB business is…so…
Let’s not continue it on this forum. You have the (myspace) link and if you want you can do it there.
i know this part of biography but i remember different years
tx for infos
Rounds run out of positive assistance before number 8 I’d think but the value of a sheltered big stadium can’t be overestimated. That’s why i would doubt that a maximum legal wind would help unless you had the extroardinary fortune to have a quartering wind at just the perfect angle .
I think the rounds would mean there is a net negative effect, but that may be mitigated somewhat - particularly when you consider the sub maximal effort put in for most of those rounds with his next fastest 100 3/10ths slower than his max and the 200 semi nearly a second slower than the final.
I’m not saying it made no difference, but I think with his reserve and the potentiation effect of the rounds negative is not as great as one may initially conclude.
At any rate, one of the biggest problems will be finding a meet that can afford Bolt. If he was asking for 250K before what will he be asking now? I just hope he doesn’t price himself out of the market. It may be worth his while taking a leaf from pharma pricing - charge what each market can afford rather than a fixed price for all. You have more experience in these matters than I, what are your thoughts on Bolts fees? With the number of races he has competed in, I can’t see how he is maximising profits - revenue per race yes, but not across the entire season.
I’m thinking your point about price is to Bolt’s benefit. If there are less options, he may have a chance to recover- if he runs everywhere, it couldn’t happen.
Do top guys basically plan out a yearly schedule, and then use the fee offers/negotiations to figure out exactly which meets to go to?
Or will they run at a particular time or against particular people just because the fees are high enough, even if it’s not part of an annual plan?
I imagine the second way would be more lucrative, but less helpful in the long term.