People shouldn't be allowed to keep their jobs after writing headlines like this.
I understand the temptation to make a play on words, finding some way to equate Bolt's last name with his speed on the track. I think the second world record is remarkable enough that you don't need to get cute with the headline, but I still understand.
That said, this attempt is just so very bad. This is why you have to show some restraint. Take the first two unnecessary and heavy-handed words out and you've got a perfectly good headline. Instead, it's as if the writer had to force-feed the joke to everybody. He's fast, right? Like lightning. Get it? And his last name, Bolt, so, you know, he's fast, like lightning. Get it? Guys? Anyone?
Update: The New York Times shows approprate restraint. Plus they had a great Tufte-esque graphic on the front page that illustrated how amazing Bolt's run was. It's diluted somewhat by breaking it into nine-different pieces, but still pretty compelling: Bolt's feat.
The AP example is all part of the dumbing down of journalism. Quirky, catch-phrase-laden headlines are supposed to draw in younger readers but in the end turn away the dedicated readers who matter.
Yeah. I was mostly surprised that this was an AP article. I'd expect something similar from a small-town newspaper, but not the Associated Press.