Denard thinks he could beat Bolt

[milohimself]

Surprised this topic is this contentious

 

[hndog609]

The point is, in ideal track conditions, on a WR run he put up around a 4 forty. Add in all the conditions of a football time and it's common sense that number goes UP and not DOWN. There's a reason Bolt, who is a man of entertainment, won't run this race, it'd dissapoint fans.

Bolt is a international millionaire superstar. There's no reason in the world to care what some chump American football player thinks he can do. I know there's been buzz on and off about somebody talking to somebody else yada yada but again, Bolt's WAY bigger than CJ.

Now, Tyson Gay or even Yohan Blake? Hmmmm. It's not Bolt but it's the next tier of "big name" WC sprinters. A no BS FAT timed best 2-3 would have plenty of interest IMO.

 

[Thunndarr]

Yes it is established that using his track time would get him around a 4 second forty when you subtract the football time difference.

However, it's only common sense to realize that with starting blocks, with wind at your back, and with a track surface, you are going to post a faster time than you would doing it football style.

So if the best Bolt can run, in track conditions is a 4 flat, common sense should tell you he isn't going to run the same or better in football condition.

The numbers vary on what adding football condition would result in, this is along away blocks, track surface, the wind...but the point is his time would only go up from 4 seconds, not down or stay even.

Using common sense, Bolt is somewhere around a 4.2 in football conditions, but there's no way to be positive. Maybe blocks have a bigger impact on him because of his height, so maybe that puts him at 4.3. Maybe his body doesn't transition well to turf and now he's a 4.35 guy, and maybe with no wind at his back it effects more than though and he's a 4.4 guy.

The point is, in ideal track conditions, on a WR run he put up around a 4 forty. Add in all the conditions of a football time and it's common sense that number goes UP and not DOWN. There's a reason Bolt, who is a man of entertainment, won't run this race, it'd dissapoint fans.

I'm only posting in this thread because the idea that the fastest man in the world, who was leading the other 7 fastest men in the world by the 20 meter mark, somehow has bad acceleration and would even come close to being challenged by anyone in the NFL (let alone Robinson) is simply ludicrous.

 

[volfanCLT]

I'm only posting in this thread because the idea that the fastest man in the world, who was leading the other 7 fastest men in the world by the 20 meter mark, somehow has bad acceleration and would even come close to being challenged by anyone in the NFL (let alone Robinson) is simply ludicrous.

Go look at his WR race. He isnt leading after 20m.

 

[hndog609]

Go look at his WR race. He isnt leading after 20m.

IAAF 20m splits for Bolt's 9.58.

Bolt
2.89

Richard Thompson
2.90

Asafa Powell
2.92

When the difference is 3/100ths of a second don't be trusting your eyes. It's a tiny lead to be sure but yeah, Bolt was leading at 20m. He was .06 up on the next fastest at 40m and .08 up at 60m.

 

[volfanCLT]

IAAF 20m splits for Bolt's 9.58.

Bolt
2.89

Richard Thompson
2.90

Asafa Powell
2.92

When the difference is 3/100ths of a second don't be trusting your eyes. It's a tiny lead to be sure but yeah, Bolt was leading at 20m. He was .06 up on the next fastest at 40m and .08 up at 60m.

How many of the men running were within .24 seconds of Bolt at the 40m split?

 

[hndog609]

How many of the men running were within .24 seconds of Bolt at the 40m split?

.24 is a lot. (I'm assuming you're basing this off the commonly referenced FAT vs hand time conversion)

Anyway at 40m Bolt leading was a 4.64 (4.49 -RT) while Darvis Patton was last with a 4.85 (4.7) So the 1st to last spread was .21 at that distance.

 

[volfanCLT]

.24 is a lot. (I'm assuming you're basing this off the commonly referenced FAT vs hand time conversion)

Anyway at 40m Bolt leading was a 4.64 (4.49 -RT) while Darvis Patton was last with a 4.85 (4.7) So the 1st to last spread was .21 at that distance.

So if Bolt could run a sub 4 (which many of you claim he could) than everyone in that race would be running the fastest official 40 time in history.

If Bolt runs a 3.99, we would expect Patron to run a 4.20, no?

 

[bleedingTNorange]

So if Bolt could run a sub 4 (which many of you claim he could) than everyone in that race would be running the fastest official 40 time in history.

If Bolt runs a 3.99, we would expect Patron to run a 4.20, no?

That's a damn good point.

Once again, the common sense factor should be used here, some of y'all are lacking it.

 

[bleedingTNorange]

I'm only posting in this thread because the idea that the fastest man in the world, who was leading the other 7 fastest men in the world by the 20 meter mark, somehow has bad acceleration and would even come close to being challenged by anyone in the NFL (let alone Robinson) is simply ludicrous.

You seriously believe noone in the nfl would challenge him in the 40?

 

[LittleCat]

That's a damn good point.

Once again, the common sense factor should be used here, some of y'all are lacking it.

If common sense was common, a lot more people would have it.

 

[hndog609]

So if Bolt could run a sub 4 (which many of you claim he could) than everyone in that race would be running the fastest official 40 time in history.

If Bolt runs a 3.99, we would expect Patron to run a 4.20, no?

Timed as football players on the track? Absolutely. Why do you think I listed Gay and Blake as possible alternatives to Bolt for a "football vs Olympian" faceoff in post #152? Yes Bolt has run 40m faster (at least by any times I've seen to date) and yes Bolt has MUCH better name recognition but Gay is the American record holder and only person other than Bolt to go sub-9.7. Blake is the hottest name other than Bolt recently with his Silver in London.

Full disclosure; I'd be really happy to just have a REAL NFL's fastest man competition. Get Johnson/Ford/Holliday et al together and have them run two passes being FAT timed as discussed in this article.

Combine experimenting with 40-yard dash timing - CBSSports.com

(which is a damned informative read if you haven't seen where I posted it earlier) Even more interesting than who would win (which would be interesting) would be to FINALLY get some genuine, no-BS benchmarks to work with at 40 yards. Obviously if we wanted to slake our curiosity about a genuine apples to apples comparison with the Olympians we'd have to have the football guys run FAT times with splits (and maybe a laser at 40yds ) on a track. Even better would be both but that seems pretty unlikely.

 

[bleedingTNorange]

Saying everyone who's ever ran 100m, and been within .24 of Bolt's time at 40m, would run sub 4.2 forty's should be enough to put this thread to rest.

Absolutely asinine.

 

[bleedingTNorange]

A few things I've found...

-The 50m World Record is 5.56 seconds by Donovon Bailey. If you knock a tenth of a second off for his reaction time to the gun its 5.46 sec from when he actually started to move. Now 50 metres is 54.68 yards so Bailey was moving at virtually 10 yards per second. This translates to a flat 4.00 for the 40.

On a 40 yard dash however Bailey would not be running at 10 yards per second as he would be hitting his peak speed from 45-55 yds. Even at 9.5yds per second that translates to a 4.21 sec 40yd dash. Any reports of 3.8 and 3.9 are ludicrous.

-Maurice Green ran a track 40, at the 2001 world championships, his time was 4.24 and that's subtracting his r/t. This guy has ram 9.79 100m, so Bolt is .21 faster at his best over 100m. Knowing that bolt isn't going to beat him by .21 over 40yd, since he only beat him by that over 100, one can assume its about half that. So Bolt may be about .11 faster through 40 yards than Green, which would put Bolt at 4.13 on a track, using blocks, and with the R/T subtracted. Now take away blocks, take away a track surface, and that time goes up. Once again Bolt is in the 4.2-4.3 range and that's FOOTBALL TIME.

 

[Thunndarr]

You seriously believe noone in the nfl would challenge him in the 40?

Not only is he the fastest man alive, he is the fastest man who as ever lived in the history of the earth. Yeah, I don't think anyone from the NFL would challenge him in the 40. Look, I ran track, I played football. You make it sound like the 40 is some kind of super technical race and that will somehow cripple Bolt's time. EVEN IF IT DID, he still has otherworldly speed and that's why he'd blow ANYONE away.

 

[Thunndarr]

But let's put it this way, is there anyone currently in the NFL who could have qualified for the finals of the men's 100 meter dash?

I mean, Jeff Demps (possibly the fastest NFL player, right now) made the 4x100 relay team in one of the preliminary rounds, and that's about it, and he reportedly has run between 4.2-4.3 seconds in the 40. And HE would have gotten beaten by the LAST PLACE guy in the 100 meter final in the Olympics.

 

[LSU-SIU]

But let's put it this way, is there anyone currently in the NFL who could have qualified for the finals of the men's 100 meter dash?

I mean, Jeff Demps (possibly the fastest NFL player, right now) made the 4x100 relay team in one of the preliminary rounds, and that's about it, and he reportedly has run between 4.2-4.3 seconds in the 40. And HE would have gotten beaten by the LAST PLACE guy in the 100 meter final in the Olympics.

True. Those same guys racing would have been in last place in 400m. So? It's not the same race. This isn't hard to understand. Under this theory the guy who won the 400m would also hands down win the 200m. It's not the same race, not even close.

Common sense left this thread a long time ago.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Not only is he the fastest man alive, he is the fastest man who as ever lived in the history of the earth.

He is not the fastest man alive or in history. He is the fastest man at the 100 and 200m. Everything is relative. You watch too much TV.

Just because you are the fastest at one race doesn't make you the fastest in them all. This is really just common sense.

I see nothing great about the guys first 120ft off the blocks, he is about average for 100m guy, give or take on any given day. Is he fast, hell yeah, is he superman over the first 120ft, not at all.

You don't see tall guys running under 4.3s at the combine for a reason, matter of fact Calvin Johnson and Stephen Hill are about as close as you can get at 4.35 and 4.36. Calvin Johnson's time is actually unbelievable as he was 239lbs. Peterson also had quite a time at 220lbs. of 4.31 but he is only 6'1.

 

[hndog609]

Saying everyone who's ever ran 100m, and been within .24 of Bolt's time at 40m, would run sub 4.2 forty's should be enough to put this thread to rest.

Absolutely asinine.

Might be a little on the squishy side to try to say, as a certainty, what might be under a 4.2 but let's try your oft-cited "common sense" approach.

By your own math (not mine, yours) you had come to peace with the idea that on the track Bolt (at least on that 9.58 run) would have his football time somewhere down around 4.0 based on his 4.64. I mean, it's right there. Hell's bell's man you worked it out yourself. (and has been similarly worked out by scads of others)

So, somebody else has a time at 40m of 4.88. Exactly how different is the math you used to arrive at Bolt's time going to be vs this person's? It would certainly stand to reason that Bolt's acceleration curve is going to be higher (else he wouldn't be in the lead, though the RT difference between the two would matter) but we're still talking a known time and distance that's going to have .24 chopped off at the end. Sub-4.2? Eh, probably not, but to think it wouldn't be sub-4.3.

 

[LSU-SIU]

hndog609

The study that was done was 4.35s 40 yard split in 2008.

Take the blocks out, add whatever time for reaction you are talking 4.3-4.4s range without blocks and no gun, give or take. bleedingTNorange's numbers basically match up with previous estimates 4.3-4.4 guy in the 40 yard dash.

Even if you knock it down further, good chance several guys in the NFL can take him, but you never know unless they race. If you put it with no blocks and grass, they will take his lunch. IMHO

Most math with times for racing are subjective or opinion as their is wind, surface and others. Like I said, many people timed Holliday at 4.21 and 4.22s at the combine, but the official time was 4.34s. Holliday is much faster than Peterson and Peterson had a time of 4.31s.

 

[hndog609]

-Maurice Green ran a track 40, at the 2001 world championships, his time was 4.24 and that's subtracting his r/t. This guy has ram 9.79 100m, so Bolt is .21 faster at his best over 100m. Knowing that bolt isn't going to beat him by .21 over 40yd, since he only beat him by that over 100, one can assume its about half that. So Bolt may be about .11 faster through 40 yards than Green, which would put Bolt at 4.13 on a track, using blocks, and with the R/T subtracted. Now take away blocks, take away a track surface, and that time goes up. Once again Bolt is in the 4.2-4.3 range and that's FOOTBALL TIME.

The Bailey stuff was too slapdash for me to address with any real accuracy. This Greene one I can.

To the boldened; I found that time referenced. Are you working from this?

It was reported Ben Johnson splits in his ill-famous 9.79 100 meter race in Seoul was 4.38 seconds for 40 yards, 5.52 seconds for 50 meters, and 60 meters in 6.37. Both the 50m and 60m were under the current world records for those distances at the time.

At the 2001 World Championship 100m final in Edmonton, Maurice Greene covered 30m in 3.75 seconds and 40m in 4.64 seconds, extrapolating his 40 yard (36.576m) time at about 4.24 seconds.

If so, did you read further?

These 2 times and races include reaction time, anywhere from 0.100 to 0.150 seconds.

So no, that is not with his RT subtracted. (Which, FYI, was a .132) We haven't subtracted for the FAT vs football time either. That's said to be as much as .24 but hell, let's just call it .2. So take your 4.24, subtract Greene's RT of .132 and then knock another .2 off that. Then get back to me. Did you notice the underlined 4.64 for Greene's 40m raw split? That number look familiar?)

 

[Thunndarr]

He is not the fastest man alive or in history. He is the fastest man at the 100 and 200m. Everything is relative. You watch too much TV.

Just because you are the fastest at one race doesn't make you the fastest in them all. This is really just common sense.

I see nothing great about the guys first 120ft off the blocks, he is about average for 100m guy, give or take on any given day. Is he fast, hell yeah, is he superman over the first 120ft, not at all.

You don't see tall guys running under 4.3s at the combine for a reason, matter of fact Calvin Johnson and Stephen Hill are about as close as you can get at 4.35 and 4.36. Calvin Johnson's time is actually unbelievable as he was 239lbs. Peterson also had quite a time at 220lbs. of 4.31 but he is only 6'1.

/sigh

Here's what you don't understand. The guy who has the fastest 100 meter time, also has the fastest top speed, hence the term fastest man alive. Guys who have a fast 400 meter time, DO NOT HAVE THE FASTEST TOP SPEED, which is why nobody ever called Michael Johnson the world's fastest man.

Thus, if you are following, Bolt, due to his insanely fast 100 meter time, HAS RUN FASTER IN TERMS OF ACTUAL MILES PER HOUR THAN ANY HUMAN IN THE COURSE OF HISTORY.

THUS, he's the FASTEST MAN WHO HAS EVER LIVED. Argue with that all you want, you'll just be flat out wrong.

 

[hndog609]

hndog609

The study that was done was 4.35s 40 yard split in 2008.

Yes, and includes reaction time and does not include FAT conversion.


Most math with times for racing are subjective or opinion as their is wind, surface and others. Like I said, many people timed Holliday at 4.21 and 4.22s at the combine, but the official time was 4.34s. Holliday is much faster than Peterson and Peterson had a time of 4.31s.

Christ dude the math times and other stuff are objective, not subjective, unless compared across each other. For instance:

We can land crap on the moon and even fracking Mars with math. Figuring out taking a KNOWN 40m time and getting it down to a 40yd time within, at worst, a few hundtredth's isn't exactly bringing on the Apocalypse.

Now, if you'd just stick a fork in it and stay to something along the lines of "I can accept what these people are clearly able to run under track conditions but maintain they would pay a severe penalty when being timed in the same manner as football players." you'd be fine. I do not, nor have I ever claimed to know exactly what these guys would run if rigorously timed under those conditions. In fact, in that regard you have been orders of magnitude more speculative than I.

 

[LSU-SIU]

/sigh

Here's what you don't understand. The guy who has the fastest 100 meter time, also has the fastest top speed, hence the term fastest man alive.

There is no race that determines a top speed, the 100m race could exclude many guys that have a higher top speed. Top speed does not get you necessarily to the finish line first.

The fastest man alive is just a statement, it's all relative.

Guys who have a fast 400 meter time, DO NOT HAVE THE FASTEST TOP SPEED, which is why nobody ever called Michael Johnson the world's fastest man.

I do. Its like saying who the prettiest woman is.

Thus, if you are following, Bolt, due to his insanely fast 100 meter time, HAS RUN FASTER IN TERMS OF ACTUAL MILES PER HOUR THAN ANY HUMAN IN THE COURSE OF HISTORY.

Speculation.

THUS, he's the FASTEST MAN WHO HAS EVER LIVED. Argue with that all you want, you'll just be flat out wrong.

Not wrong at all, it's your OPINION. You are speculating.

This all started by you saying the fastest 100m is also the fastest 40 yard dash guy, that is an opinion that I do not necessarily share.

Bolt is the fastest 100m & 200m guy that we know of in the world today, anything other than that is speculation.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I do not, nor have I ever claimed to know exactly what these guys would run if rigorously timed under those conditions. In fact, in that regard you have been orders of magnitude more speculative than I.

Exactly it's all speculation. The only way for us to know is for them to race. I see nothing great about Bolt's 40 yard time, just my take. The rest of it is speculation.

I have no problems with Johnson saying he could beat him, at least he is willing to do it. Bolt will never race and for good reason.

It's hard to take a guy seriously that was claiming bolt was running a sub 4.0s 40. The other guy tried to tell you how stupid it was, other people tried to tell you, you are not going to listen.

He looks like a 4.3-4.4 guy to me based on the guess work, but we will never know unless he lines up and based on other studies I see nothing strange about guys that run sub 4.35s at the combine claiming they could beat him at the 40, matter fact I would think it's very likely some would. End of story.