Beijing, athletics

Olympics: Bolt, Powell, Gay - the fastest show on earth is wide open

Yesterday I stood alone on the start line of the 100 metres in the Bird's Nest Stadium. Rain was falling from a sky criss-crossed with the wire-cameras that will move as quickly as the athletes. Ahead the white lane lines stretched away through the puddles towards the finish line. Half-way down, even from this low vantage point, you can just make out the Olympic rings embossed into the hard rubber surface of the running track.

Come Saturday night it will be transformed but the view down the track will remain the same. Usain Bolt, Asafa Powell and Tyson Gay will, barring injury mishap in qualifying, walk up the ramp from the call-up room below and out into the glare of the floodlights that are recessed into the stadium roof. The eagerly awaited men's Olympic 100m final will be minutes away and how each individual absorbs all of those images and the expectation may well prove the difference between three men so closely matched that even the bookies cannot make up their minds who will win.

The three fastest men of all-time in one race with sport's greatest prize on offer is a rare occurrence that will, it must be hoped, live in the memory for all the right reasons. Each man has legitimate claims to the gold medal and each has his supporters from the world of athletics. Bolt is the raw talent who has gate crashed the party and is seemingly calling the tunes. By the time he gets through the rounds here the Jamaican will have almost doubled the number of top-flight 100m races in which he has run.

As Maurice Greene said the other day, it is frightening that a man who is still learning the event is now the world record holder and poised to become Olympic champion. He has the exuberance of youth about him and, although his smiles are as rare as his defeats, it would be a mistake to label him as anything other than lively. It is rumoured that his team-mate and rival, Asafa Powell, insisted Bolt was not close to his own sleeping arrangements.

Powell gives the impression at times that sleeping is what he would like to do most of the time. I have often used the word languid to describe him and it does the job well. Only when he manages to ignite the passion and talent he clearly has do we get to enjoy the most aesthetically pleasing sprinter of the three. Being so good can seem like a drag to him at times and his complaint this week about reportedly excessive blood testing came from a man who would patently prefer to do nothing so strenuous instead.

If the two Jamaicans appear easier to stereotype, then that is partly because Tyson Gay is more difficult to pigeon hole. He has none of the swagger normally associated with sprint kings, especially those from across the Atlantic, and has public respect for his rivals and an almost reverential admiration for those who have gone before him. He deals with the media in an assured if slightly measured way but is more open than most in his position usually are. Gay calls his mum in the final minutes before he attempts to beat the world - not because she knows a lot about sprintingbut because she makes him feel good.

He is refreshingly proactive about drug testing and thinks the Olympic champion should declare himself clean and be able to prove it. He says he even tries to say good luck to his competitors on the start line.

As these words are read, the three of them will already have started their campaign in the first round. As the final approaches tomorrow night, their idiosyncrasies will be accentuated and, as long as all three are firing on all cylinders, then the way in which they handle the developing maelstrom will probably be the determining factor.

I am not silly enough to venture a prediction but I have canvassed opinion from a few who have been there themselves. They mostly seem to agree that, contrary to uninformed opinion, the person who gets out first will not necessarily win. Greene and Ato Boldon gave Bolt the best chance but Tyson Gay probably edges it on overall support.

Unfortunately for Powell he has yet to convince many that he can indeed cope with the pressure of the occasion. He has the chance to change that here. It is likely that whoever wins will have to run faster than any human being has done before. The wind will be negligible and the track is designed for speed. The question is which of the three will stand on that start line looking beyond those Olympic rings and be able to hold himself together enough to deliver the perfect race.


Your IP address will be logged

Comments in chronological order

Comments are now closed for this entry.
  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor
  • pondwatching pondwatching

    15 Aug 2008, 12:48AM

    Well if you cannae beat 'em join em' ... I'll continue the sniping at 'em theme, and categorically state that 'delicious' and sport JUST DON'T MIX. Got it ?

    Heard the word creeping into football commentaries last year and I cringed like I'd never cringed before. As in that was a 'delicious' cross floated into the middle for the striker to feast his proverbial chops upon.

    And, 'delicious' is certainly not the word I conjure up when visualising three of the most explosive human beings on earth pumping their big throbbing muscles down a stretch of re-cycled tyres cobbled together by a inordinate number of four year old Chinese children. Delicious ? No. I'd say the prospect is rather engorging ;)

    A bit Gay I know, but I do fancy him.

    'Delicious' is reserved solely for apples.

  • smifee smifee

    15 Aug 2008, 1:00AM

    Yes, I caught your interview on the BBC about this 'potential' match-up.

    Not a word about drugs though, I notice, just a straight-faced piece to camera about the world records.

  • MacMillings MacMillings

    15 Aug 2008, 1:25AM

    Asafa Powell - not to be confused with:

    Asa HartfordAsafoetidaAsafa Sixpence

    Colin PowellPeter PowellThe Powell of Love

    Usain Bolt - not to be confused with:

    Nuts and BoltsOops, I think I shot me BoltThunderbolt and lightning, very very frightening

    Usain in the Membrane"Speak up, I can't hear what Usain"Nasser Usain

    Tyson Gay - not to be confused with:

    Enola GayGay ByrneMarvin Gaye

    "Iron" Mike TysonFrank "Typhoon" TysonTyson Chicken

    Alan Wells - not to be confused with:

    Alan PartridgeAlain RobidouxA land war in Asia

    Orson WellesThe Bishop of Bath and WellsDisgusted of Tubridge Wells

  • Grazman Grazman

    15 Aug 2008, 2:55AM

    Allan Wells, the last white man to win an important sprint, and then only because the Americans weren't there. It is quite fascinating to me that no white man, as far as I know, has run the 100m under 10 seconds. Is there any research on this or is it considered politically incorrect?(I am, by the way, a totally non-racist white man). I would really like to know.

  • smifee smifee

    15 Aug 2008, 3:46AM

    Well Grazman, Alan Wells is, of course, Scottish...

    And the Americans may not have been there but the East Germans and the Russians were.

    And before we muddy the waters with the Black and White stuff, let's find out how sprinters were able to dip below the 9.9 mark.

  • PopsPopper PopsPopper

    15 Aug 2008, 4:33AM

    The reason no white man has ever won the 100m sprint as of recent years is that same reason that befalls the 200m freestyle black Olympic champion.Some bodies are built different than others,thought some of you might have noticed.................

  • Grazman Grazman

    15 Aug 2008, 4:47AM

    Smifee,

    I am perfectly aware that Mr Wells, a great athelete, was a Scot. What has that got to do with it? Furthermore, the attending Russians and East Germans you mention were also white. The missing Americans, who, with all due respect to Mr Wells, would have certainly won the sprint had they been there, would have all been black. Tell me one white sprinter who is in the mix these days? I am not trying to make a point, I just want to know if any research has been done on this.

  • BallaBoy BallaBoy

    15 Aug 2008, 5:32AM

    Craig Pickering?

    It's a complex area - less the case in women's springting and muddied by considerations of participation, alternative career options etc etc etc.

    I don't think it's being controversial to observe that most top sprinters are black. I just think it's the wrong observation in many ways. After all, you don't see many great african sprinters, with Ethiopia, Somalia and Kenya producing far more long distance athletes.

    The "black sprinters have a natural edge" thing is essentially based on the USA and Caribbean, with the odd Afro-Carribean from the UK. (That's not a firm declaration - completely open to correction).

    So the black fixation is a bit of an issue for me, if only because it's evidently not identifying the relevant factor. If there is a physiological edge that applies somewhere, it's not a function of blackness as far as I can see.

    Also, I'm pretty sure that it's a bell curve issue at best. I mean, no one would argue that the notion that black men run faster holds right through the population, would they?

  • MusingsofaFailure MusingsofaFailure

    15 Aug 2008, 5:36AM

    Tyson Gay is recovering from a hamstring that caused him to pull up in the 200m at the US trials last month, Asafa Powell has pulled a stomach muscle and Usain Bolt has said that winning the 200m would mean more to him than the 100m. My tip is Nigeria's Olusoji Fasuba who won the 60m at the World Indoor Championships, back in March, the 100m at the African Athletic Championships in April and whose personal best is 9.85s.

  • Connerie Connerie

    15 Aug 2008, 6:42AM

    Actually fell runners are the fastest people on earth. A top fell runner can do 100m down a steep grassy hill in well under 10 seconds. See 'Feet in the Clouds' by Richard Askwith.

  • aTownCalledPenguin aTownCalledPenguin

    15 Aug 2008, 7:18AM

    I would say the sprinting dominance of the Afro-Caribbeans is due to West African physiology - that being the homeland of most of the black peoples of the Americas.

    East African physiology is different, and seems to be suited to longer distance running. East Africans were enslaved too but didn't fetch up in the Americas.

    Caucasian physiology is different again, and it seems that with access to equal diet, training and competing opportunities we simply don't win many footraces. We whiteys are dominating in the pool, but I could be persuaded that access to swimming pools, supersuits and kickboards is not so even for this to mean much.

  • deepaknatarajan deepaknatarajan

    15 Aug 2008, 8:23AM

    It would be infantile to cross words with a man who has been considered one of the greatest metric milers this planet had produced.Moreover Steve is clinically correct in stating that the fastest man will be tough to predict.He is spot on.

    However, now that the track events have begun ramifications of possible usage of Repoxygen (and similar stuff) need to be addressed. Unfortunately WADA, albeit ferociously sincere is seriosly out of its depth , despite multiple blood tests ...or storage of blood.

  • BillyMills BillyMills

    15 Aug 2008, 9:05AM

    From memory, the 200m world record is 19.32, 100m is 9.72, so the best 200m runners are faster than the best 100m runners. And have been for a long time. So why does this "fastest men in the world" myth live on?

  • Hodgie Hodgie

    15 Aug 2008, 9:18AM

    Billy - hardly anyone gets under 20secs for 200m, never mind anywhere near Johnson's time, so its not true to say that the best 200 guys are faster - just that the best one was.

    Oh, except for Bolt of course, who is a 200 guy at heart.

  • BillyMills BillyMills

    15 Aug 2008, 9:38AM

    Hodgie

    In 1968, Tommie Smith ran 19.83, the 100m record was 9.95.

    In '79, Pietro Mennea ran 19.72, the 100m record didn't catch up until Carl Lewis in '91. That's 12 years.

    It's not just MJ, 200m records have consistently been better. Only Leroy Burrell, for about 2 years 94/96, has been faster than the current 200 m record, by a whole .02 of a second (200m equivalent). Since 96, the 100m have had another 12 years to catch up but haven't.

  • Hodgie Hodgie

    15 Aug 2008, 10:01AM

    My point was that there are a lot more sub-10s than sub20s - 200m records have been rare exceptional performances whereas there are loads of fast 100s. Your point is equally valid, I'm not going to argue as I'm watching the cycling...

  • BallaBoy BallaBoy

    15 Aug 2008, 10:19AM

    There's no doubt that some 200m can achieve faster splits, given their running start for their second 200m. You then, of course, have to balance that with the extra distance run in terms of fatigue.

    Ultimately, settling it would probably require agreement on an arbitrary figure of 10m or 20m and taking the fastest section of either contenders race to measure m/s.

  • grforbes grforbes

    15 Aug 2008, 10:19AM

    Can't let Grazman's claim that the Americans would certainly have beaten Wells if they'd been in Moscow in 1980 pass. There's no reason to believe this. The top American 100m runner then, who would have been Olympic favorite, was Stan Floyd. Iirc, Floyd raced Wells in the 100 three times in 1980 after Moscow, Wells won the first, Floyd the second, and I can't remember who won the third, but the fact that Wells won the first puts the whole "the Americans would have won" thing in severe doubt. It's a long time ago but I recall that Wells went on to make hay with the top Americans in 1981, Mel Lattany and Calvin Smith, I think, including a crushing win in the Dubai Golden Sprints. Wells was second in the 100 to a surprise French winner but slaughtered the field in the 200 for the best combined time. I still recall David Coleman screaming his head off as Wells crossed the line with a lot of daylight between him and everyone else, "What can they say now? What CAN they say now?", "they" being the Americans. Wells was never the fastest on paper in these events, but he was a big-occasion runner the nominally faster guys feared. Just ask Silvio Leonard.

  • BillyMills BillyMills

    15 Aug 2008, 10:24AM

    BallaBoy: I'd say that average kph over the distance run is the best measure. There is no doubt that the elite 100m men are the fastest over 100m, but my view of "the fastest men on earth" is a bit broader than that. The best 200m runners achieve a higher average kph than anyone else on the flat.

  • wylecoyote wylecoyote

    15 Aug 2008, 10:27AM

    I think the reason the best 200m times are better than twice the 100m time is the fact that the 200m guys hit the 2nd 100m at pretty close to top speed. Conversely there are fewer sprinters who are then able to maintain that speed for the longer distance (its all a case of slowing down the least having reached top speed), hence fewer sub-20s than sub-10s. Out of interest, when Michael Johnson (who in my opinion is the greatest sprinter the world has seen - so far) in his WR 200m went through the first 100m in 10.12, the 2nd 100m in 9.2s and reached a top speed of 40 km/h. Phenomenal.

    Although it was said that "Bullet" Bob Hayes ran the last leg for the US 4x100m relay team in the 1964 Olympics in 8.5s. On a cinder track. Age 21. In borrowed spikes...

    This final should be a cracker. My prediction? Bolt 1st, Gay 2nd; Powell nowhere again (confirming his reputation as a bottler); if the weather allows, a WR, probably 9.69; two GB sprinters in the semis but not in the final.

    Of course, happy to be proved wrong...

  • Neu75 Neu75

    15 Aug 2008, 10:34AM

    Well, if this mornings heats are anything to go by, Bolt is going to walk it!He sauntered down the straight for the easiest 10.20 100m I've ever seen..Powell seems to be troubled by an abdominal strain, but it's Gay I'm most concerned with.He looked awful, like he hadn't slept a wink and didn't look entirely convincing. Walter Dix looked out of sorts too. Pate looked good though..

    We'll have more of an indication in the second round...

  • theardis theardis

    15 Aug 2008, 10:52AM

    Billy Mills,

    Obviously 200 metre runners have longer at optimum speed & a lesser percentage of their race, compared to the 100 metres, is acceleration. So in theory they should be way ahead of the 100 metres runners. It would be interesting to register the times if the 200 metres was run in a straight line.

    It is probably down to history (& the fact that most of us couldn't sprint flat out for 200 metres but could 100 metres? Or is that just me) that 100 metres is the preferred event.

    Regarding the black/white sprinter argument, (and its reverse in swimming) it is hard to comment on in today's pc environment without being labelled a racist. I guess there is probably a difference in genetic make up, but I am by no means an expert.

  • JamieX JamieX

    15 Aug 2008, 10:57AM

    I remember a lot of people saying after Donovan Bailey and Michael Johnson broke the 100m and 200m world records in Atlanta, that Johnson was really the fastest man in the world.

    But I remember reading, and being surprised, that Bailey's top speed was faster than Johnsons. There's some discussion here:

    http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/06/fastest-man-in-world.html

    Its not conclusive, but it suggests that although the second 100m of the 200m will be faster than a 100m the 100m sprinters reach higher top speeds.

  • DavidBest DavidBest

    15 Aug 2008, 11:05AM

    The "average speed" calculation for 100m vs 200m is going to favour the 200 because of the effect the start has i.e. the first couple of seconds are about acceleration. In the 100m that's a bigger proportion of the race than in the 200m.

    If you look at the "top speed" then the 100m runners have it, hence the "fastest man on earth" tag.

    As for the race element, I imagine the selective effect of slavery picking the strongest most muscular men from west africa has something to do with it. Hence the greatest sprinters of recent times all being from the US or caribbean. But it's not a determining factor. The random element could produce a great sprinter from any population. It's foolish to draw too many conclusions.

    My prediction: Bolt, Gay, Powell all under 10s but no world record. Not sure the conditions will suit a world record.

  • goto100 goto100

    15 Aug 2008, 11:10AM

    We just spent weeks ripping the tour de france apart, and rightly so.

    Why so little scepticism about an article discussing the 100m, surely one of the most sullied of a generally sullied range of track and field events?

    At least stage race professional cycling is making a sustained and serious effort to do something about the problem. but when you here that the total number of blood tests for the entire Olympics with heaven knows how many athletes has been raised to the HUGE total of 4500, you just shake your head in disbelief.

    The same way present day sprinters and rouleurs belting up alpine passes faster than Robert Millar could 20 years ago is ludicrous, so too the steep descent of 100m records to sub-Ben Johnson levels. Simply, not humanly possible. A farce.

  • iamnotacrook iamnotacrook

    15 Aug 2008, 11:28AM

    If we're going to get into this ridiculous argument about whether the 100m or 200m champion is the fastest man on Earth (clearly 100m, for the reasons already given), why not set up a dead straight race (i.e. no bend) of 170m, give or take? I can guarantee that if the top sprinters competed, they'd all have a faster average speed than either the 100m or 200m champion, which would make the winner of *that* race the fastest man on Earth.

    So Billy's wrong either way.

  • pleasetickother pleasetickother

    15 Aug 2008, 12:32PM

    Hang on Jones and Gatlin never tested positive did they?

    The commentators gushing seems abit weak to me, I wont say any of them are cheats. It reminds me of the description of Major Major in Catch22 - to paraphrase the lessons of previous let downs not being learned as you go forward with each new experiance with all the enthusiam in the world.

  • CarlosBelafonte CarlosBelafonte

    15 Aug 2008, 12:44PM

    I'm hugely looking forward to the race myself but lets not get carried away - "the greatest prize in sport" Who even notices that athletics even exists outside of this quadrennial two week window?

  • Balloffire Balloffire

    15 Aug 2008, 1:05PM

    goto - fair bit of cynicism on the GU blogs around the continued lowering of swimming world records over the last few days too. I wonder if we'll have the same when the GB cyclists are smashing track records all over the place - they've already started. I expect not.

  • FunkyBadger FunkyBadger

    15 Aug 2008, 1:46PM

    Thing about the swimmers is it's not just one man or one team lowering the records, it's everyone. Brits cyclists haven't broken any world records yet, but got a lot of PBs, which shows they're a really well run unit. Compare and contrast with the athletics.

  • OnRee OnRee

    15 Aug 2008, 2:42PM

    back in 96 after donovan bailey had set the 100m OR at 9.84 (the WR back then) and Michael Johnson had set the 200m record of 19.32, there was the debate of who was truly the world's fastest man.

    so in toronto, in our not beloved skydome, they setup a track, that had a slight curve and a long straight as to not benefit one sprinter over the other. then they also the distance to be 150m. although Michael Johnson pulled a muscle and didn't finish the race, at when he did, he was already losing to Bailey and i doubt he would have finished faster.

    look up wikipedia on Michael Johnson for the details

  • theardis theardis

    15 Aug 2008, 3:21PM

    FunkyBadger,I believe the world records in the swimming are in part due to the new swimming suits. The cyclists will also break numerous records due to improved bike technology. Obvisouly for both, the athelites still have immense natural talent also.However, it makes for a less than level playing field. In an ideal world the organisers would standardise the equipment allowed for these sports. In the heavily sponsored world of the Olympics it will never happen.

  • Grazman Grazman

    15 Aug 2008, 3:28PM

    Forbes,

    Well, I stand corrected on that. Wells was, as I said above, a great athlete. I am still intrigued however at the dominance of black men in sprinting. They are really awesome.

  • PatrickBateman PatrickBateman

    15 Aug 2008, 3:29PM

    Bolt is simply astounding. I have never seen somebody run the 100 metres so effortlessly. I just sat there laughing my head off at his run in the second round - unbelievable. The gold medal is bolted on and he'll definitely run under 9.7.

  • carlosq carlosq

    15 Aug 2008, 5:44PM

    To BillyMills, your math speaks of a linear nature does not apply to the 100 and 200 meters events. It's a little more complex than that. The first part of the race consist of the acceleration phase. Then the speed peaks, and then it declines. That explains why in a 4X100 relay it is possible to run under 40 seconds even with athletes a little over 10 seconds flat. The athletes get to accelerate on the changing zone, so that once they are effectively running with the baton, they have accelerated already. Once on the fly, it should not surprise anybody to see people running under 10 seconds the 100 meters. Excellent runners have recorded 9 seconds flat.

  • DickieVale DickieVale

    15 Aug 2008, 8:35PM

    There is no proven genetic reason for the domination of the sprints by people of african enthnicity. Indeed the only proof available demonstrates that gentic profiles have nothing to do with it.

    East africans dominate distance running because of geography (altitude) and lifestyle.

    There was an excellent TV program with Colin Jackson a few weeks ago examining this very subject (surprised it hasn't been mentioned already.) Jackson himself had a muscle biopsy to identify what, if any, genetic advantage he may have had - there is verified science in this area.

    The biopsy results showed that Jackson had no special physiological or genetic head-start. The scientist showed that neither do Jamaicans or African Americans. The reasons for black domninance of the sprits were shown to be related to opportunity, motivation, participation and sporting priorities.

  • OnRee OnRee

    15 Aug 2008, 10:08PM

    "The biopsy results showed that Jackson had no special physiological or genetic head-start. The scientist showed that neither do Jamaicans or African Americans. The reasons for black domninance of the sprits were shown to be related to opportunity, motivation, participation and sporting priorities."

    do you really believe this? so the difference between me and Bolt is opportunity, motivation, participation and sporting priorities... riiight

  • DickieVale DickieVale

    16 Aug 2008, 8:25AM

    I don't know you OnRee, u tit, and I didn't say anything about the differences between you and Bolt or Jackson or anyone else. I repeat that the scientists, who know what they are talking about in this areas unlike you or I, have shown that black people have no in-built genetic advantage over white people as regards sprinting - at least not the black people who are engaged in Olympic sprinting.

    I guess you are from the school of people who wouldn't give your kids the MMR jab because of the views of one discredited quack when the whole of the expert scientific community, supported by the government not only stated but proved that the injection was safe and saves lives.What's the point of bothering with any science or education when people think they can form superior opinions from unscientific observations or a few anecdotes?

    Makes me want to cry.

    As it happens, having worked and travelled in Africa I know that there is much greater (scientifically measured) genetic diversity in that continent than anywhere else, which is probably the clinching demonstration that homo sapiens evolved in east africa. But millions of people choose not to beleive that either.

    Countless things that seem to be obvious and true are not. Do you know why the moon is larger when it's closer to the horizon? Funny isn't it? Well the answer is it's not larger at all, it's an optical illusion.

Comments are now closed for this entry.

Comments

Sorry, commenting is not available at this time. Please try again later.

Medal table

Overall medal table

Last updated: Aug 24 2008

Pos
Team
Gold medalGold
Silver medalSilver
Bronze medalBronze
Total
1 China 51 21 28 100
2 United States 36 38 36 110
3 Russia 23 21 28 72
4 Great Britain 19 13 15 47
5 Germany 15 10 15 40

Our selection of best buys

Lender Initial rate
First Direct 2.99% More
ING 2.99% More
First Direct 2.29% More
Name BT Rate BT Period
Barclaycard Platinum 0% 15 mths More
NatWest Platinum 0% 15 mths More
Royal Bank of Scotland Platinum 0% 15 mths More
Provider Typical APR
Sainsbury's Personal Loan 7.8% More
Provider AER
EGG BANKING PLC 2.80% More
ING DIRECT 2.75% More
TESCO BANK 2.75% More

Free P&P at the Guardian bookshop

Browse all jobs

jobs by Indeed