Quote:
Originally Posted by NJLife
Sprinters considered the fastest humans? They are only the fastest over a 100m distance. Why aren't 60m winners considered the fastest human runners? The 200m is more impressive.
Who was the person to claim 100m are the fastest human? It doesn't even make SENSE! The 100m would probably get raped in a 1500m race, then who is the fastest person alive?
(no hate)
|
It makes perfect sense.
You can't reach top speed in the 60m, it shows the greatest acceleration.
As for 200m, although sprinters reach greater top speeds in the straight way of the 200m then the 100 meter race but the runner can't run top speed on the curve so isn't a great indicator of who faster at that point. Also it's much harder to maintain top speed during the later stages of this race, so it takes a bit of special endurance to be a great 200m runner.
The 100m is the best of both worlds. There's not much deceleration as the 200m and it much better at displaying top speed then the 60m.
Thats why 100m is considered the fastest human on earth.
100m would probably get raped in 1500m race, but a 1500m would get raped in a 100m race.
You really comparing apples and oranges.
anaerobic to aerobic, fast twitch to slow twitch.
1500m isn't a race of speed as much as it's a test of endurance. Sprinters are FASTER, endurance runners or just 'faster' over a longer period of time, not because of top speed but because of endurance.
100 meter is ultimate test of true speed.
Linear Mode
