Usain Bolt

The One wrote:9.74 Asafa Powell Rieti, Italy September 9, 2007
9.72 Usain Bolt New York, USA May 31, 2008
9.69 Usain Bolt Beijing National Stadium, China August 16, 2008
9.58 Usain Bolt Berlin Olympic Stadium, Germany August 16, 2009

Well that is a tenth of a second, though my maths sucks. And 9.99 is at least legal.

Shoeshine wrote:

Bradman wrote:OK! I farked up. My point was the WR had been lowered slowly over time by .hundreths of a second. He lowers it twice by a tenth of a second both times. Plus I think 9.99 is actually legal.

As I said, over the last century, the times have fallen in more or less a straight line. Looked at historically, it's nothing particularly unusual.

They've been running 9.99 since the turn of the last century, admittedly hand timed. That's not a straight line, it's a precipice.

Bradman wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

Bradman wrote:OK! I farked up. My point was the WR had been lowered slowly over time by .hundreths of a second. He lowers it twice by a tenth of a second both times. Plus I think 9.99 is actually legal.

As I said, over the last century, the times have fallen in more or less a straight line. Looked at historically, it's nothing particularly unusual.

They've been running 9.99 since the turn of the last century, admittedly hand timed. That's not a straight line, it's a precipice.

9.95 was first run in 1968 by Jim Hines.

Bradman wrote:

The One wrote:9.74 Asafa Powell Rieti, Italy September 9, 2007
9.72 Usain Bolt New York, USA May 31, 2008
9.69 Usain Bolt Beijing National Stadium, China August 16, 2008
9.58 Usain Bolt Berlin Olympic Stadium, Germany August 16, 2009

Well that is a tenth of a second, though my maths sucks. And 9.99 is at least legal.

you said

"He lowers it twice by a tenth of a second both times"

Bradman wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

Bradman wrote:OK! I farked up. My point was the WR had been lowered slowly over time by .hundreths of a second. He lowers it twice by a tenth of a second both times. Plus I think 9.99 is actually legal.

As I said, over the last century, the times have fallen in more or less a straight line. Looked at historically, it's nothing particularly unusual.

They've been running 9.99 since the turn of the last century, admittedly hand timed. That's not a straight line, it's a precipice.

hand-timed only went to a single decimal, so 9.9. we went to two decimals only after electronic timing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_100_metres_world_record_progression

Shoeshine wrote:

Bradman wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

Bradman wrote:OK! I farked up. My point was the WR had been lowered slowly over time by .hundreths of a second. He lowers it twice by a tenth of a second both times. Plus I think 9.99 is actually legal.

As I said, over the last century, the times have fallen in more or less a straight line. Looked at historically, it's nothing particularly unusual.

They've been running 9.99 since the turn of the last century, admittedly hand timed. That's not a straight line, it's a precipice.

9.95 was first run in 1968 by Jim Hines.

And that stood for 15 years

taipan wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

Bradman wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

Bradman wrote:OK! I farked up. My point was the WR had been lowered slowly over time by .hundreths of a second. He lowers it twice by a tenth of a second both times. Plus I think 9.99 is actually legal.

As I said, over the last century, the times have fallen in more or less a straight line. Looked at historically, it's nothing particularly unusual.

They've been running 9.99 since the turn of the last century, admittedly hand timed. That's not a straight line, it's a precipice.

9.95 was first run in 1968 by Jim Hines.

And that stood for 15 years

Which is what happens when someone does something dramatic - viz Seb Coe, Michael Johnson, Bob Beamon et al.

I farked up. No excuse. Mea Culpa.

Though Jim Hines could've been the last legal record

Shoeshine wrote:

taipan wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

Bradman wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

Bradman wrote:OK! I farked up. My point was the WR had been lowered slowly over time by .hundreths of a second. He lowers it twice by a tenth of a second both times. Plus I think 9.99 is actually legal.

As I said, over the last century, the times have fallen in more or less a straight line. Looked at historically, it's nothing particularly unusual.

They've been running 9.99 since the turn of the last century, admittedly hand timed. That's not a straight line, it's a precipice.

9.95 was first run in 1968 by Jim Hines.

And that stood for 15 years

Which is what happens when someone does something dramatic - viz Seb Coe, Michael Johnson, Bob Beamon et al.

Beamon was a freak allied to favourable atmospheric conditions. That record should never have been broken.

Though it does raise the interesting point about bowling speeds that the likes of Atherton talks about. In other words, it is certainly possible that Larwood was the fastest of all time, or that Holding was quicker than anything around now, but it would be bucking the trend of every other sport.

I think Tyson claimed to have come close to 100mp/h in a wind tunell or something. There used to be a website dedicated to fast bowling speeds.

Frankly I don't trust the speedometers they use having given a bit of money to to the Policeman's Ball lately.

Well, I'm not paying any attention to bowling speed claims, because there's so much debate over the accuracy and veracity. I'm just saying that it would be most likely that the fast bowlers of now are faster than those of the past, and those in the future will be faster than those of today. It is perfectly possible that the current numbers are completely accurate, and that we only doubt them because we have rose tinted spectacles about the past, and struggle to accept that Jimmy Anderson is faster than Harold Larwood - but I wouldn't be at all surprised.

After all, Mark Lewis Francis is faster than Jesse Owens, and he's crap.

I don't see any bowlers going for six byes these days though which I believe Jeff Thompson managed on a few occasions.

I saw Thommo bowl in a charity match when he was about forty. I'd rather face Lee when he was twenty.

vilkrang wrote:I don't see any bowlers going for six byes these days though which I believe Jeff Thompson managed on a few occasions.

Impossible - unless there are overthrows. Four byes is the maximum.

Shoeshine wrote:

vilkrang wrote:I don't see any bowlers going for six byes these days though which I believe Jeff Thompson managed on a few occasions.

Impossible - unless there are overthrows. Four byes is the maximum.

Oh, I thought if the ball cleared the boundary with only one bounce it would be six byes.

vilkrang wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

vilkrang wrote:I don't see any bowlers going for six byes these days though which I believe Jeff Thompson managed on a few occasions.

Impossible - unless there are overthrows. Four byes is the maximum.

Oh, I thought if the ball cleared the boundary with only one bounce it would be six byes.

Nope. Has to come off the bat.

Although the only reference of clearing the rope without bouncing seems to be from about a hundred years ago, Charles Kortright.

For what it's worth - Bolt's 100m time should be a prelude to a 19.1s 200m. The 200m record has historically been slightly less than twice the 100m record.

In the charity match the ball cleared the fence and landed on the race course next door.

Plus if the ball hit the sight screen back when he was playing it was a six.

JGK wrote:For what it's worth - Bolt's 100m time should be a prelude to a 19.1s 200m. The 200m record has historically been slightly less than twice the 100m record.

Why doesn't the guy try for the 400 whilst he' as it. He's got the form, plus I don't think that's ever been done?

Er no. There is no recorded instance of six byes in cricket because the laws have never permitted it. Kortright's is the only recorded instance of the ball clearing the rope, but even then it wasn't six byes.

It wouldn't be six byes even if deep third man tipped a wide beamer from harmi over the third man fence.

Unlikely, I know.

Nup. The only way you can get a six is to hit it. Well you can also run it.

Bradman wrote:Nup. The only way you can get a six is to hit it. Well you can also run it.

Could run six byes

No the runs. Interesting triv question. Has there ever been an all-run six?