leppy's analysis = military intelligence. Oxymoron. Or, just moron.

He fails to consider outside factors.

If you get yourself up to that speed, and by that speed I mean quicker than a tortoise without the aid of a motorized scooter, you drop dead of a heart attack at the 35 ft mark.

If Bolt manages not to trip over your lifeless body, he wins in a landslide.

This analysis is fairly convincing in its case that a 22-year-old NFL prospect who can run a 5-second 40 could beat Bolt under these circumstances. I'm not sure that's the same thing as MikeT beating Bolt.

50 feet is less than home plate to the pitchers mound(60ft 6inches).It is closer to the softball distance (46ft). Scarry as it sounds Mike might be able to pull this off.

As I said, I'm about 50 lbs lighter, 25 years older and not talented enough to be invited to the NFL combine. But I've also played outfield in baseball/softball for the last 30+ years. The first step is the difference in catching a flyball. Speed is secondary(and a distant second) when discussing range. How many tough flyballs are even in the air for 3+ seconds?

The error I find in this is the shuttle is about a full burst one direction and doing a 180. Even a bad outfielder doesn't frequently run full tilt the wrong direction only to run full tilt the opposite direction like the shuttle.

Plus the worst outfielder doesn't get it wrong every time. So how often does he get it correct and is able to run down a ball that completely goes over 275 lbs guys head vs how often breaks the wrong direction.

Think of it this way, even when he breaks the wrong direction you only beat him by a few feet, but when he gets it correct he could run 25 feet further in that 3 seconds. Even Willie Mays got to a point wear athletically his great instincts made patrolling CF sad. So if I had to pick between the you with the best instincts and Bolt with the best speed I'm picking Bolt.

While I agree that a fast guy breaking in the right direction with catch more balls than a slow guy breaking in the right direction, that's not really the point.

The discussion started with speed's affect on range. Again, that wrong first step cannot be corrected quickly enough to cover the same range as a quick first step in the right direction within a 50 foot radius. The first step is explosive. You're not going at full speed when you take it(obviously) but your momentum is moving fully in that direction.

I think, if I had to pick the better athlete, I'd probably have to go with Bolt myself. But I bet he can't hit a lick either.

He'd be a better base stealer, Id assume.

Not if he couldn't read pitchers or slide.

According to a study discussed here -- http://www.livescience.com/culture/090403-sports-baseball-catch.html -- the direction of that first step might not matter as much as you'd think.

Anyway, the discussion started because one guy thought it was insane that a 90 speed could be a 55 range(or something like that). Range has a lot more to do with reaction than speed.

Go time yourself in the backyard. You'll see.

I'm not really arguing with you, MikeT. Your premise makes sense to me. But that study above offers an interesting look at how outfielders catch flyballs.

You can argue with me, it's cool.

I haven't read the article yet but my entire argument(especially racing Bolt) involves taking a step entire in the wrong direction. Outfielders aren't likely to break right(unless they're peeking the pitch and anticipating) on a ball hit to the . But they can break in on a ball hit over their head or step back on a ball in front. When that happens, they're done. Speed can't fix that.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 5/07/2010Anyway, the discussion started because one guy thought it was insane that a 90 speed could be a 55 range(or something like that). Range has a lot more to do with reaction than speed.

He's never seen Fred Lewis in the outfield....

And Omar Vizquel had decent speed at best, but could cover more territory than any other SS I've seen.