@ElSpewtardo by arguing against my point on grass/sand you are saying that billy slater runs around 4 flats on grass 40 m. and 6 flat on sand. ludicrous.
@ElSpewtardo I said that in response to the person who claimed billy slater runs 40m in 4.06, i was merely pointing out that he was running around the 6 second mark on sand, and then i acknowledged obviously grass is going to be faster, but there's no way it would be 2 seconds faster over 40m. That's all i was doing. It's called reading comprehension mate try it sometime. I'll concede that bolt can probably run quicker than 4.5 but i wouldn't put him much if any faster than a 4.3
@youbetzler So its common sense that the difference between sand in grass is somewhere in the 2 second mark for 40 metre sprints? lolz yeah that sounds like a really accurate way to compare people running on different surfaces.
Pretty sure I know Billy can't run a 40m in 4 flat. Im saying Bolt runs closer to 4 flat than 4.5. Bolt hasn't been timed running a 40.But im sure its much closer to 4. ie 4.2 than a 4.5.
@ElSpewtardo over 40 metres it's just common sense that there wouldn't be a 2 second difference between the two surfaces. Think about what you are doing here. You are supporting the claim that billy slater can run a 4 flat 40, when I've shown that even Usain Bolt cannot.
@ElSpewtardo try googling accuracy and precision and maybe you'll understand how stupid you are. The difference between the race clock and the electronic time isn't .3 of a second, it's usually less than .05. So even if there was a discrepancy it puts him running a 4.2 high at best. and a 4.4 mid at worst. nowhere near a 4 flat you idiot. And way to ignore my point regarding the physics of the race, but given that you keep saying noob you are obviously a child and don't understand simple maths
@youbetzler The race clock displayed on the tv isn't accurate noob. Often you will see times displayed on the tv that don't match the electronic time, Its because of the refresh rate. And back to your point about sand v grass times. Where did you magically get this < 2 second difference between the 2 surfaces? Sounds like you just pulled it out of thin air.
@ElSpewtardo I'm not measuring speed, i'm measuring time and displacement. The time was ticking from 4.3 to 4.4 right as he crossed the 40 metre line. this time was also the race clock. You call me a noob yet you make the idiotic claim that he can run 40 in 4 flat but somehow slows down immensely afterwards to only get a 9.58. His top speed is around 43kph which he probably gets to just before the 40 so his last 60 would take around 5.1-5.2 seconds. So he should be running 9.1s according to you
@ElSpewtardo by arguing against my point on grass/sand you are saying that billy slater runs around 4 flats on grass 40 m. and 6 flat on sand. ludicrous.
youbetzler 5 months ago
@ElSpewtardo I said that in response to the person who claimed billy slater runs 40m in 4.06, i was merely pointing out that he was running around the 6 second mark on sand, and then i acknowledged obviously grass is going to be faster, but there's no way it would be 2 seconds faster over 40m. That's all i was doing. It's called reading comprehension mate try it sometime. I'll concede that bolt can probably run quicker than 4.5 but i wouldn't put him much if any faster than a 4.3
youbetzler 5 months ago
@youbetzler So its common sense that the difference between sand in grass is somewhere in the 2 second mark for 40 metre sprints? lolz yeah that sounds like a really accurate way to compare people running on different surfaces.
Pretty sure I know Billy can't run a 40m in 4 flat. Im saying Bolt runs closer to 4 flat than 4.5. Bolt hasn't been timed running a 40.But im sure its much closer to 4. ie 4.2 than a 4.5.
ElSpewtardo 5 months ago
@ElSpewtardo over 40 metres it's just common sense that there wouldn't be a 2 second difference between the two surfaces. Think about what you are doing here. You are supporting the claim that billy slater can run a 4 flat 40, when I've shown that even Usain Bolt cannot.
youbetzler 5 months ago
@ElSpewtardo try googling accuracy and precision and maybe you'll understand how stupid you are. The difference between the race clock and the electronic time isn't .3 of a second, it's usually less than .05. So even if there was a discrepancy it puts him running a 4.2 high at best. and a 4.4 mid at worst. nowhere near a 4 flat you idiot. And way to ignore my point regarding the physics of the race, but given that you keep saying noob you are obviously a child and don't understand simple maths
youbetzler 5 months ago
@youbetzler The race clock displayed on the tv isn't accurate noob. Often you will see times displayed on the tv that don't match the electronic time, Its because of the refresh rate. And back to your point about sand v grass times. Where did you magically get this < 2 second difference between the 2 surfaces? Sounds like you just pulled it out of thin air.
ElSpewtardo 5 months ago
@ElSpewtardo moron
youbetzler 5 months ago
@ElSpewtardo I'm not measuring speed, i'm measuring time and displacement. The time was ticking from 4.3 to 4.4 right as he crossed the 40 metre line. this time was also the race clock. You call me a noob yet you make the idiotic claim that he can run 40 in 4 flat but somehow slows down immensely afterwards to only get a 9.58. His top speed is around 43kph which he probably gets to just before the 40 so his last 60 would take around 5.1-5.2 seconds. So he should be running 9.1s according to you
youbetzler 5 months ago
@youbetzler Well now I know you're a complete noob. You can't accurately measure someone's speed from video recordings. Google it to find out why lol
ElSpewtardo 5 months ago
@ElSpewtardo Ok i just watched the video of his world record 100. and paused it right as he crossed the 40 metre line. between 4.3 and 4.4
youbetzler 5 months ago