Please excuse me if this has been posted before.
It seems that in order to be a National/World class sprinter, you have to be 6ft 3 or better. It would appear that taller is better. Popov was 6' 7", Hall 6'5", Lezak 6'5', Cullen Jones 6' 5", Sabir Mahammed 6'6". our own Smith crew 6'?, An oldy but a goody Robert Peel 6'6 etc, etc. From my TV, it looked as though Phelps was the shortest guy on the WR 400 free relay at 6' 4"
Knowing this, in the future, should shorter, young, potential world class sprinters be redirected to middle distance or other strokes? Do short guys/gals even stand a chance anymore?
It would seem that basketball players would make the best sprinters. They have the height, the strength and the vertical leap down pat.
If by most challenging you mean that the 50 is the most difficult to win consistently over a significant period of time, then I would have to agree. There is little margin for error.
I think you would have to say, however, that physiology is a fairly important factor in sprint events. Given similar levels of technique and mental toughness, I will put my money on the 6' 6" guy over the 5' 10" guy any day no matter how hard the 5' 10" guy trains.
This is not necessarily the case at longer distances, but at least the little guy stands a chance in those events.
Sincerely,
70 inches and shrinking
If by most challenging you mean that the 50 is the most difficult to win consistently over a significant period of time, then I would have to agree. There is little margin for error.
I think you would have to say, however, that physiology is a fairly important factor in sprint events. Given similar levels of technique and mental toughness, I will put my money on the 6' 6" guy over the 5' 10" guy any day no matter how hard the 5' 10" guy trains.
This is not necessarily the case at longer distances, but at least the little guy stands a chance in those events.
Sincerely,
70 inches and shrinking
