Fastest Person on Earth?

[Tretiak]

This monicker is often reserved for the winner of the 100 meter dash, whether it is in the Olympics or some International tournament. But it seems to me that the term fastest person on earth should go to the person with the fastest "instantaneous" speed, as opposed to the "integrated' speed over a psecified length. OK I am being pendantic, and I guess the instantaneous speed would be difficult to measure, but certainly if I needed to get a message 1600 meters I would not necessarily pick the "fastest person on earth". Why is the 100 meters given this unofficial title?

[sailor]

I thought this was going to be about something else... what the heck, I'll tell the story anyway. Many moons ago I was young and highly excitable... if you get my drift. I finally maneged to get this girl into the sack and just as I am getting into *her*, she says "don't come inside as I am not on the pill". Well, it so happened that I had come as I entered and as she said that... I pulled out and said "I just lost interest in sex..." (which was true enough). I never told her the truth... and luckily she did not become pregnant. I don't know if this qualifies as "fastest" but it has to rank pretty high up there.

Luckily I've slowed down over the years.

[H8_2_W8]

Michael Johnson's 200M time of 19.32 seconds is better than Baily's record of 9.84 for 100M for average speed, so that's why MJ was called the fastest man on earth. Maybe it was an American bias, but c'mon, the guy ran in gold shoes and we know how heavy gold is!

I think they raced a 150M race but one of them pulled up lame so it wasn't decided.

[BobT]

It was Johnson who pulled up lame in the race although it many believe that he did so to avoid losing straight up, which would have been quite humiliating.

I've always heard the Olympic 100m or the World Champion 100m winner called "The World's Fastest Man."

[JeffB]

It seems like you should refer to the fastest person in a given type of race. We had a related discussion (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?action=newreply&postid=1111842) a while back about, and to quote BobT:

Originally posted by BobT
Split times for relay legs aren't kept officially in track. However, you can get a pretty good estimate on the time by viewing a slowed down video tape.

Using such a system, Carl Lewis' anchor leg on the men's 4 X 100m relay at the 1992 Olympics was timed at 8.74 seconds. That was part of the record setting 37.40 time turned in.

So Carl Lewis ran a faster 100m in the relay than the actual world record for the 100m. And as H8_2_W8 points out, Michael Johnson's average speed in the 200m is higher than the world record 100m (which is Maurice Greene, BTW). To quote myself from the other thread, these are the world records:

100m, Maurice Greene, 9.79 sec; 9.79s/100m
200m, Michael Johnson, 19.32 sec; 9.66s/100m
4x100m, USA (Marsh, Burrell, Mitchell, Lewis), 37.40 sec; 9.35/100m

As to why the title of "world's fastest person" is given to the 100m winner, I think it's just easier for journalist and the general public to grasp.

[RickQ]

I don't have any answers, but I have a question. What is meant by instantaneous speed by the OP. Is that something like acceleration?

Another question is are we looking for the fastest unassisted person? If not, there would be a case for the holder of the land speed record too. I guess when most people think of the fastest person on earth, they do think of the current holder of the 100m world record, but that is bit of an arbitrary measurement. As has been pointed out, how would people measure the fastest, and who would decide over what distance the measurement should take place.

Um, sorry, not much help with the inital OP :)

Rick

[tsunamisurfer]

Most sprinters reach maximum velocity somewhere around the 60-meter mark and then imperceptibly decelerate toward the finish. Some, like Carl Lewis, however, were known for their last 30-meter kicks. Green et al. would agree that Michael Johnson is not a sprinter in the strictest terms and Johnson could never challenge 100-meter sprinters in the 100, nor could they challenge him in the 200.

Why is the 100 given the "world's fastest" title? Because it is the race in which the runners achieve the fastest speeds. For pure explosive power, however, why not consider the 60-meter dash?

A related question: how much have performance-enhancing drugs helped the current crop of world-class sprinters? According to the rumor mill--and those in the know--all of them use these drugs, yet they keep passing the tests.

[warmgun]

Well as long as we are questioning things...why does fastest have to mean legs/feet? How fast was Ali's hands? Or what about quick draw artist?, those guys are REALLY fast.

But to the OP, we have to pick SOME distance as a standard, why not 100m ?

[lucwarm]

For the sake of argument, ask yourself why the world's best 10,000 meter runner is not referred to as the "fastest man."

Why? Well, in track parlance, saying someone is "fast" or "has a lot of speed" means they have sprinting ability. Great distance runners have a lot of stamina and endurance. (Note that many distance runners, but not all, also have a decent amount of speed.)

Of course, the shorter a distance is, the more "speed" that is required to succeed, and the less endurance is necessary.
Thus, it is unsurprising that the shortest major track distance should be considered the ultimate test of speed.

I realize that there are other track distances that are less than 100 meters, but they simply aren't as widespread in track meets as the 100 meters. I think that most people would agree that the major running events in track and field are the 100 meters, 200 meters, 400 meters, 800 meters, 1500 meters, 3000 meters, 5000 meters, and 10,000 meters, as well as various relays and hurdle events.

[Sam Stone]

You know, I'm always defending Americans here in Canada because of the insane anti-American bias I constantly see. And I'm not particularly patriotic when it comes to sporting events. But in this case, I think you Americans have behaved like boors.

The title 'The Fastest Man Alive' has been traditionally assigned to the holder of the record in the 100m dash. It doesn't matter why, since it's a meaningless yardstick anyway. And you guys were perfectly happy to go along with that when it was Americans winning it. But along comes a Canadian, and suddenly it's the 200m that earns the title. That's just petty. You guys win enough medals and get enough accolades already. You should learn to be a little more magnanimous.

And since when is dividing the 200m time by two relevant? May I remind you that the 200m runner is starting the second 100m already going full speed? Dividing the overal 200m time by two proves nothing at all, because it averages the time lost to reaction time and getting up to speed over twice the distance.

For example, take a 1/4 mile drag race. If you increased the length of the race to 1/2 mile and then divided by two to find the 'winner', you'd see people focusing on designing engines that have broader power curves, different transmissions, etc. And the handicap of being a slow starter wouldn't be as important. So it would be a DIFFERENT race, with DIFFERENT requirements for success.

Finally, even though Bailey isn't primarily a 200m runner, he graciously allowed his title to be put on the line. He had everything to lose, and nothing to gain (aside from a lot of money, which is probably why he did it). He basically had to defend a title that was rightly his against an American who had no claim to it in the first place. And may I remind you that before Johnson pulled up lame is was already losing by a significant margin? A lot of Canadians think his injury was faked because he knew he was going to lose. I have absolutely no opinion on that, because I think the whole notion of Bailey having to justify his earning a title against an American who had no claim to it in the first place to be offensive.

[tsunamisurfer]

Don't know who slighted Canada, Sam, but it certainly wasn't me. I respect Canadian sprinters but, let's face facts: many of the recent world-class sprinters are from the Caribbean and only jumped ship to declare U.S. or Canadian citizenship because of the training and endorsement opportunities.

You're right about the nonsense of dividing the 200 by two to derive who is fastest. As for Donovan Bailey, he's no longer in his prime, IIRC. The gentleman that you are, certainly you will concede that Bailey himself acted boorish when Johnson faked a hamstring injury and he proceeded to humiliate him in the press for days on end. Johnson may not have Bailey's 100 speed, but he is a class act.

(Let's not mention Green's atrocious behavior on the Olympic medal stand.)

[JeffB]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
You know, I'm always defending Americans here in Canada because of the insane anti-American bias I constantly see. And I'm not particularly patriotic when it comes to sporting events. But in this case, I think you Americans have behaved like boors.

Sam, if you're suggestion that we Americans are behaving like boors in this thread, I have no idea what you're talking about. First of all, I don't know who in this thread is American, other than me. Second, I don't really care about runners' nationalities -- I'm not even sure I would have recalled that Donovan Bailey was Canadian unless it was mentioned. Third, Bailey doesn't hold the world record in the 100m -- Maurice Greene does. Bailey's best time is 9.84 sec. He does, however, hold the Olympic record.

From my perspective, the "fastest person" distinction is pretty arbitrary. You have to pick some set interval to measure speed, and picking the 100m dash over any other standard race is arbitrary. In the thread I linked to above (which really should have been [url="http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=58594"]this link[/url), AETBOND417 posted some speeds for 10m increments that was kind of interested. The bottom line is that Michael Johnson had a higher average speed than Maurice Greene did in their two world records, and Carl Lewis had a higher average speed than either of them in the 4x100m relay.

Finally, even though Bailey isn't primarily a 200m runner, he graciously allowed his title to be put on the line. He had everything to lose, and nothing to gain (aside from a lot of money, which is probably why he did it). He basically had to defend a title that was rightly his against an American who had no claim to it in the first place. And may I remind you that before Johnson pulled up lame is was already losing by a significant margin? A lot of Canadians think his injury was faked because he knew he was going to lose. I have absolutely no opinion on that, because I think the whole notion of Bailey having to justify his earning a title against an American who had no claim to it in the first place to be offensive.

Actually, neither Bailey or Johnson had anything to lose since the "fastest person" title is completely meaningless. I think the only reason either of them agreed to the race was for monetary reasons. I have no opinion one way or the other about Johnson pulling up lame because he was going to lose. I didn't even bother to watch the race or follow it because in my opinion it was a silly show that had nothing to offer.

[JeffB]

I am going to get this link (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=58594) right one of these days.

[DPWhite]

Dude, your sister is the fastest person on earth!

[Snakeeye]

Originally posted by H8_2_W8

Michael Johnson's 200M time of 19.32 seconds is better than Baily's record of 9.84 for 100M for average speed, so that's why MJ was called the fastest man on earth. Maybe it was an American bias, but c'mon, the guy ran in gold shoes and we know how heavy gold is!

I think they raced a 150M race but one of them pulled up lame so it wasn't decided.

I remember this argument well...

As soon as Bailey won the Olympic 100 metre race, and was declared by the World media as the worlds fastest man, the American media shot back by commmenting that the second 100 metres of Johnsons 200m race was faster than Baileys time. Johnson ran ~9.2 in that second 100m. Thus, the argument.

Of course, the error with that argument is that Johnson was at a dead run for that second 100m, while Bailey was at a standing start. Canadian media also debunked the claim by pointing out that Bailey ran his 100m leg of the 4x100 relay at about 8.9 seconds, better than Johnsons start at a dead run.

So, until Greene broke the world record, Bailey was rightly considered the worlds fastest man.

And yes, Johnson pulled up lame in an attempt to save some face after Bailey ended up destroying him in the race.

[Tretiak]

Originally posted by RickQ
I don't have any answers, but I have a question. What is meant by instantaneous speed by the OP. Is that something like acceleration?

What I was getting at wsa basically if you plotted distance on the x-axis and time on the y-axis, so at ten meters it was 2 seconds at 25 meters it was 4 seconds, etc. then the "instantaneous" would be the derivative. I think. An anolgy might be an auto race, like NASCAR. The "fastest" car/driver could be defined as the one that wins the race, or the fastest single lap (or any increment of distance), or the car that gets the highest speed registered at any "instant" on the speedometer.

As some have mentioned you really need some sort of arbitrary distance. Hypothetically, however, you could take smaller and smaller "distances and as that apporaches zero you would get the derivative.

Am I making any sense?

[Cerowyn]

The "fastest person on Earth" could be taken to mean the human who achieved the highest instantaneous speed. That was the argument that Bailey supporters used to contradict Johnson's claim that he was the fastest human (Bailey achieved a higher speed than Johnson did). I suspect that the 100 m sprinters will almost always hold that distinction, and I'm sure Greene holds that title now (it's obviously not necessary for the world record holder to also have achieved the highest speed, but it's likely).

[MrDeath]

"Scientists tell us that the fastest animal on earth, with a top speed of 120 ft/sec, is a cow that has been dropped from a helicopter." -- Dave Barry

I'd say offhand that, depending of course on your frame of reference, the fastest people on Earth would have to be those 24 that have been to the moon and back. (And yes, I can name them all. Alphabetically or in launch order.) When the third stage cut off, they were going over 27,000 km/h. Oh all right, that's not really "on Earth". But certainly the fastest people. On Earth, well, what's the landspeed record at these days?

Oh, unassisted? Depending how you count, anywhere from 75 km/h to the low 90's, on a bicycle.

[pluto]

Originally posted by MrDeath
Oh, unassisted? Depending how you count, anywhere from 75 km/h to the low 90's, on a bicycle.

Does freefall count as unassisted? Then the record would go way up. His name escapes me at the moment (Kirchener?) but the guy who jumped from a balloon in the stratosphere nearly broke the speed of sound.

[Sam Stone]

"The Fastest Man on Earth" could be measured all kinds of ways, but it's not. It's an honorary title, given to the man who wins the 100m dash.

Unless, of course, he's not American. Then some of you will try to go through twists and flips to come up with a way to get the title taken away from the rightful holder and given to an American.

[Akatsukami]

The fastest man on earth was Moses.

Many are of the opinion that Adam was the fastest man on earth, as he was first in the human race. However, Moses could have easily beaten him, had not the Lord told him to come fo(u)rth.

(N.B.: Any resemblance between this post and an actual attempt to answer the OP is purely coincidental and wholly unintended.)

[tsunamisurfer]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
"The Fastest Man on Earth" could be measured all kinds of ways, but it's not. It's an honorary title, given to the man who wins the 100m dash.

Unless, of course, he's not American. Then some of you will try to go through twists and flips to come up with a way to get the title taken away from the rightful holder and given to an American.

Sam, Sam, Sam. What's going on with you, man? As far as I can tell (by reading earlier posts), you're the *only* one who gives a hoot about nationality re: 100-meter dash.

only the slimmest margin of Americans give a flip about the "fastest man" title. It simply doesn't register.

[BobT]

The number of Americans who got really worked up over who was faster: Michael Johnson or Donovan Bailey, was a pretty small number of people. Most of them lived in Eugene, Oregon I think.

People in the U.S. watch track every four years when NBC deigns to show us some tape of an event at the Olympics.

The final days of the World Track and Field Championships are this weekend in Edmonton. Plenty of good seats available.

[ElvisL1ves]

Just a couple of points:

Carl Lewis' performance in the 4x100 leg came with a running start for his leg. There's no telling how he'd have done that day with a standing (well, crouching) start - but probably not a world record.

Re Canadian sprinters: Ben Johnson, for instance, was hailed in Canada as a great Canadian. Then his drug test came up dirty. After that, Canadians seemed to call him a "Jamaican immigrant". Not criticizing anyone there; it's just natural. Donovan Bailey and Bruny Surin are also immigrants, I believe.

Sam Stone, are you going clarify that remark about "[us] Americans acting like boors", or just let the impression it formed sit there and ferment? You seemed to be referring to the staged, farcical 150M Bailey-Johnson race, and are implying further that Johnson (only 1 of 250 million of us, btw) actually faked an injury. Is that what you're saying?

[ElvisL1ves]

Oh yes, if one is looking for highest instantaneous speed, one can probably do no better than to look for the current dominant sprinter in the shortest event, the 100M. That person will have done the most training for highest speed over a distance short enough that aerobic activity is irrelevant.

[Sam Stone]

Okay, clearly not all Americans feel that way, or even the majority. And maybe it's even a tiny minority.

But the American media sure did. This is probably one of those issues where you guys wouldn't notice it because it's just one small issue in a sea of them, but to Canadians, it was front-page news, and the debate raged for months. And even if the percentage of Americans who cared was small, it was still a huge number to us because you're 10 times the size of us in the first place. And our media, in search of news, no doubt went out of its way to find Americans who feel that way. So for a long time we were pelted with commentary by the American media to the effect hat Johnson was the fastest man alive, and an never-ending stream of man-in-the street interviews with Americans who said it was obvious that the title belonged to Johnson because he ran his second leg faster than Bailey's 100m time.

And let's not forget what a spectacle their big race was. It wouldn't have been if the issue had not been in the public news in your country and ours.

But I would like to apologize for the 'you Americans' crack. That's exactly the kind of stuff I hate, and like I said in my first message, this whole issued annoyed me precisely because I spend a lot of my time in Canada defending Americans and the United States, because I think you have a great country. So I was doubly annoyed at this issue, because it gave legitimate fodder to my own opponents in Canada.

[tsunamisurfer]

Originally posted by Sam Stone

But I would like to apologize for the 'you Americans' crack. That's exactly the kind of stuff I hate, and like I said in my first message, this whole issued annoyed me precisely because I spend a lot of my time in Canada defending Americans and the United States, because I think you have a great country. So I was doubly annoyed at this issue, because it gave legitimate fodder to my own opponents in Canada.

We understand completely, Sam. You're country has so much to be proud of and can now claim a new generation of sprinters who compete at the highest level.

No hard feelings whatsoever.

Oh, by the way, prepare for an all-out coordinated attack of your puny little country. We will kick your ever lovin' #*$%&@Q! (smile, Sam!)

[warmgun]

T....I actually burst out laughing at that. Sorry, Sam, really but you gotta admit...that was funny......

[RickJay]

Originally posted by Cerowyn
The "fastest person on Earth" could be taken to mean the human who achieved the highest instantaneous speed. That was the argument that Bailey supporters used to contradict Johnson's claim that he was the fastest human (Bailey achieved a higher speed than Johnson did). I suspect that the 100 m sprinters will almost always hold that distinction, and I'm sure Greene holds that title now (it's obviously not necessary for the world record holder to also have achieved the highest speed, but it's likely).

Actually, it might still be Bailey. Although Greene has knocked his record off the books, Bailey was a slower starter, and tended to win races by exploding past the pack from 50m on out. If you watch a tape of Bailey's 9.84 race in Atlanta, he is actually trailing the pack right up to 40m, and was in seventh place a good 30-40 metres into the race. He then just suddenly laucnhes forward, blowing by everyone else in the second half.

Greene is a much better starter than Bailey, and grabs the lead early when he wins. He gets off the blocks faster and accelerates quicker than Bailey did, giving him the slightly better times. You'll never see him fall behind early the way Bailey used to. However, with that amazing midrace burst, I believe that Donovan Bailey, at about 55m, was running faster in his gold medal run in 1996 than any human being ever has.

At least for now. :)

The Michael Johnson comparison doesn't make sense to me; Johnson is a magnificent runner but in terms of raw speed he is well short of Maurice Greene, Bailey, and probably two dozen other sprinters; if he tried to make the Olympics running the 100m he might not even make the U.S. team. His thing is sustaining speed over medium distances, and he does it better than anyone.

[Sam Stone]

C'mon, tough guys. We're ready for you. Forget that burning the White House stuff - if you try to invade us we will simply force you to watch our television programs, and make you watch us drink our beer while offering you all the American Bud Light you want to drink.

After that, if you're not simpering and begging us to allow you to surrender, we pull out the big guns - Unbeknownst to you Americans, our border is lined with giant hidden speakers. We will turn them up, and force you all to listen to Celine Dion 24 hours a day until you capitulate.

You don't have a chance.

[Balance]

<studiously ignoring the saber-rattling--I'm far enough from the Canadian border that the Bible-thumpers will drown out Celine (not that that's an improvement)

Barry Allen?

[manhattan]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
After that, if you're not simpering and begging us to allow you to surrender, we pull out the big guns - Unbeknownst to you Americans, our border is lined with giant hidden speakers. We will turn them up, and force you all to listen to Celine Dion 24 hours a day until you capitulate.I heard about this. It's called the National Bristle Defense.

[RickJay]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
After that, if you're not simpering and begging us to allow you to surrender, we pull out the big guns - Unbeknownst to you Americans, our border is lined with giant hidden speakers. We will turn them up, and force you all to listen to Celine Dion 24 hours a day until you capitulate.

The use of Celine Dion in warfare is specifically outlawed in the Geneva Conventions, IIRC.

[tsunamisurfer]

Of course, you Canadians gave up "Second City TV," which was outstanding. That said, John Candy was rather slow in the 100 and Eugene Levy sucked.

The record times we see today in the 100 are the result of superior athleticism, yes. But you also must factor in performance-enhancing drugs, growth hormones, and tracks that are designed to assist sprinters/runners in breaking world records. Ben Johnson was caught cheating only because the anabolic steroid he used was easily detected. Not so others.

Obviously 1920s sprinters Harold Abrams or Charlie Paddock would be no match for today's crop, but then they had none of the cited advantages and ran on cinder tracks; their times today might have broken 10 seconds, who knows? Same with Jesse Owens. I would wager that had Owens every advantage that today's sprinters have--plus sponsorship and world-class training--he might have been competitive with most of them.

[tsunamisurfer]

Originally posted by tsunamisurfer
Of course, you Canadians gave up "Second City TV," which was outstanding. That said, John Candy was rather slow in the 100 and Eugene Levy sucked.

Correction: that should read:

you Canadians gave us "Second City" TV...

[Punoqllads]

The fastest man on Earth is The Flash. The fastest man on Earth II is also The Flash, but it's a different Flash. Unless DC retconned them into the same person while I wasn't paying attention.

[BobT]

Originally posted by tsunamisurfer
Originally posted by tsunamisurfer
Of course, you Canadians gave up "Second City TV," which was outstanding. That said, John Candy was rather slow in the 100 and Eugene Levy sucked.

Correction: that should read:

you Canadians gave us "Second City" TV...

Actually you should just call it "SCTV" as that is what the show's title was.

[L Faster]

Someone mentioned how Carl Lewis had a faster 100 meter split time than Maurice Greene had in the open 100 meter. The reason for this is that Maurice Greene started out of the blocks and was timed once he jumped out of the blocks. Whereas, with Carl Lewis, he was almost at or was at his maximum speed when he got the baton - that is when they would have started timing him (when he got the baton). So it would be normal for the anchor of a 4 x 100 meter team to have a faster split time than someone who had run an open 100 meter.

Someone else said that Michael Johnson's average 100 meter time of his 19.23, 200 meter, was faster than Bailey's 100 meter time. The reason Michael Johnson ran it faster was that his second 100 meter is faster, because he is at a full sprint (I think someone was saying this, also), but he appears to keep accelerating; this would lower his average 100 meter time even more.

[AtomicDog]

Originally posted by Punoqllads
The fastest man on Earth is The Flash. The fastest man on Earth II is also The Flash, but it's a different Flash. Unless DC retconned them into the same person while I wasn't paying attention.

Okay, somebody has to ask it. Who would win in a race, Superman or the Flash?