Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It's the track!

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Big Tusk
    replied
    Originally posted by bambam1729 View Post

    If you think I'm "totally blinkered" to the reality of doping in the 1960s, and going back to the 19th century, and the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, and even the Ancient Olympics, I'd be happy to have a detailed discussion with you on the history of doping in sport. I think you'll find I'm not too blinkered, or whatever the hell that is.
    I'd like to see someone debate you on Olympic history. I haven't had a solid laugh in a while.

    Leave a comment:


  • bambam1729
    replied
    Originally posted by JMysterio View Post
    According to David Wallechinsky who writes those great books on past Olympics doping in the old days was mostly drinking a ton of caffeine before the race.
    David W is a very close friend and we work together on Olympic stuff all the time, but on this he's wrong. There was doping around in the 1950s and 1960s - anabolic steroids started being used during WW2 and the 1940s and were developed both in the USA (John Ziegler was the US researcher who developed them) and the Soviet Union as a way to train their military. They were used in sport in the 1950s and the 1960s, although mostly by weightlifters and weight athletes in T&F. As I said in an earlier post, I seriously doubt Hayes was taking anabolics in that era.

    Leave a comment:


  • Atticus
    replied
    Originally posted by Wiederganger View Post
    But to compare someone who competed in an era where steroids were rife in T&F, in Football & baseball, where there were no dope tests, where steroids were not illegal...you cannot.
    Are we forgetting how many dirty athletes PASSED/PASS/WILL PASS the doping tests?

    Leave a comment:


  • bambam1729
    replied
    Originally posted by Wiederganger View Post

    I totally get that he stood out and was dominant. I get it. And for that he was an exceptional athlete. But to compare someone who competed in an era where steroids were rife in T&F, in Football & baseball, where there were no dope tests, where steroids were not illegal...you cannot.

    I get that the old guys that lived through that era worship him. But that's the problem. They are totally blinkered to the reality of what happened back then. It was like the 1980's, but worse.
    If you think I'm "totally blinkered" to the reality of doping in the 1960s, and going back to the 19th century, and the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, and even the Ancient Olympics, I'd be happy to have a detailed discussion with you on the history of doping in sport. I think you'll find I'm not too blinkered, or whatever the hell that is.

    Leave a comment:


  • clementina
    replied
    Indeed. "Comparisons are odious ," as some literary giant said.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wiederganger
    replied
    Originally posted by bambam1729 View Post
    That's why Hayes stands out - he was so dominant in his era. If he had the advantage of doping (which I doubt) presumably all his competitors had access to the same pharmacology, but they still couldn't beat Hayes.
    I totally get that he stood out and was dominant. I get it. And for that he was an exceptional athlete. But to compare someone who competed in an era where steroids were rife in T&F, in Football & baseball, where there were no dope tests, where steroids were not illegal...you cannot.

    I get that the old guys that lived through that era worship him. But that's the problem. They are totally blinkered to the reality of what happened back then. It was like the 1980's, but worse.

    Leave a comment:


  • JMysterio
    replied
    Originally posted by bambam1729 View Post

    Yes, Wiederganger, but when comparing athletes from different eras all you can really compare is how dominant people were in their era, and that is where Hayes stands out like no other until Bolt. Ran the first 9.1 (yards) and did it several times, won something like 48 consecutive races at 100 yds/metres, which is unheard of for the short sprint, ran that 10.05 (or whatever) at Tokyo (and the windy 9.91 semi), and then of course, his stunning anchor leg in the 4x100 at Tokyo. That's why Hayes stands out - he was so dominant in his era. If he had the advantage of doping (which I doubt) presumably all his competitors had access to the same pharmacology, but they still couldn't beat Hayes.
    According to David Wallechinsky who writes those great books on past Olympics doping in the old days was mostly drinking a ton of caffeine before the race.

    Leave a comment:


  • bambam1729
    replied
    Originally posted by Wiederganger View Post

    Yes.
    And I refer you back to my original post. Let's see if he would have passed a dope test first, because he never had one, and steroids were not illegal. So....🤷

    Why oh why do folk continue to ignore the elephant in the room? There was no friggin dope tests back then, for goodness sake!!
    Yes, Wiederganger, but when comparing athletes from different eras all you can really compare is how dominant people were in their era, and that is where Hayes stands out like no other until Bolt. Ran the first 9.1 (yards) and did it several times, won something like 48 consecutive races at 100 yds/metres, which is unheard of for the short sprint, ran that 10.05 (or whatever) at Tokyo (and the windy 9.91 semi), and then of course, his stunning anchor leg in the 4x100 at Tokyo. That's why Hayes stands out - he was so dominant in his era. If he had the advantage of doping (which I doubt) presumably all his competitors had access to the same pharmacology, but they still couldn't beat Hayes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trickstat
    replied
    Originally posted by spartacus View Post

    That is true, I heard 1964 system did add 0.05 to times for some reason to Bob Hayes time. I have read he actually got 10.01, but that added 0.05.

    "Bob Hayes became the first man to run under 10 seconds electronically with 9.91w in the semi-final of the 1964 Olympic Games in Tokyo. In the final, he ran a wind-legal 10.00 or 10.01 depending which of the 2 photo finishes you trust, a time that was corrected to 10.05 or 10.06 taking in account an estimated delay of 0.05 in the electric timing mechanisms used in the ‘60s and 10.06 became the accepted figure from the late ‘70s".
    A Historical Progression of Sprinting Top Speed World Bests - SimpliFaster

    Still the track question is interesting based on what they had in 1968 and what they have today.

    As most of us recongise that a new mondo track does deteriorate over time, it may well be that a new cinders track is also good at first, albeit I have also read that track Hayes ran on was cut up.
    The track used by my local club here in the UK was still cinders in the early 1990s. By this time it wasn't possible to get replacement material for the track surface.

    One of the clearest signs of a synthetic track deteriorating is when starting blocks slip.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wiederganger
    replied
    Originally posted by Atticus View Post
    No.
    I'm not saying Hayes beats Bolt straight-up, but I do believe that if he had been born the same year as Bolt and had access to today's training methods and equipment and tracks, he would be the 2nd fastest ever. If you watch Hayes run, even the Oly finals (esp. the awesome relay leg), he was still a rough work-in-progress.
    Yes.
    And I refer you back to my original post. Let's see if he would have passed a dope test first, because he never had one, and steroids were not illegal. So....🤷

    Why oh why do folk continue to ignore the elephant in the room? There was no friggin dope tests back then, for goodness sake!!
    Last edited by Wiederganger; 06-28-2022, 08:36 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Django
    replied
    Bambam, thanks for that clarification! I’d long thought that Hayes’ great run was on a chewed up lane, and that makes it all the more impressive! It’s certainly fun to re-watch in “Tokyo Olympiad”!

    Leave a comment:


  • bambam1729
    replied
    I got that a little wrong - the 20K walk was entirely within the stadium, all in the first lane, a few hours before Hayes ran in that lane. Sorry, was thinking of the 50K

    Leave a comment:


  • bambam1729
    replied
    Originally posted by Atticus View Post
    No.
    I'm not saying Hayes beats Bolt straight-up, but I do believe that if he had been born the same year as Bolt and had access to today's training methods and equipment and tracks, he would be the 2nd fastest ever. If you watch Hayes run, even the Oly finals (esp. the awesome relay leg), he was still a rough work-in-progress.
    Brutal/Texas/whatever, who knew a lot about the sprints, despite his obvious pain-in-the-ass postings on this board - did once say on the MB that he thought Hayes might have beaten Bolt head-to-head at their best. And as I said, he did know a lot about the sprints.

    For the question of the track being "cut up" in Hayes 1964 100 final, this has been discussed a lot on here. Final was 15 October. On 14 October, it rained and the 10K was run in the first lane by all the runners, chewing up the track. Then in the morning of 15 October, the 20 km walk was held starting in the stadium, although they left the stadium after a few laps and only finished at the stadium. So year, it was definitely "cut up".

    Leave a comment:


  • spartacus
    replied
    Originally posted by JMysterio View Post

    From what I've read there are questions about the timing methods used back then as FAT was just being used experimentally in addition to HT.
    That is true, I heard 1964 system did add 0.05 to times for some reason to Bob Hayes time. I have read he actually got 10.01, but that added 0.05.

    "Bob Hayes became the first man to run under 10 seconds electronically with 9.91w in the semi-final of the 1964 Olympic Games in Tokyo. In the final, he ran a wind-legal 10.00 or 10.01 depending which of the 2 photo finishes you trust, a time that was corrected to 10.05 or 10.06 taking in account an estimated delay of 0.05 in the electric timing mechanisms used in the ‘60s and 10.06 became the accepted figure from the late ‘70s".
    A Historical Progression of Sprinting Top Speed World Bests - SimpliFaster

    Still the track question is interesting based on what they had in 1968 and what they have today.

    As most of us recongise that a new mondo track does deteriorate over time, it may well be that a new cinders track is also good at first, albeit I have also read that track Hayes ran on was cut up.

    Last edited by spartacus; 06-27-2022, 10:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JMysterio
    replied
    Originally posted by clementina View Post

    "tar pits in Europe". More rubbish as sometimes on this Forum Said to try and justify Eugene's trampoline track. To make a wild inaccurate comment effectively saying London 2012 track was rubbish shows up the nonsense on this topic.
    Maybe the poster might give us explanation why a brilliant four days of glorious track by the worlds best attracted to Tracktown a very few thousand spectators.
    Huh? Bol didn't run this season in London and even if she did it would've been on a ten year old track that in no way would be as pristine as it was in 2012 and also likely in worse weather.

    And the point isn't that times were inflated at USATF, only that it's a fast, new track compared to what is currently on the Euro circuit and very few foreign athletes have even run on it yet, although the ones who did at Pre more than held their own. So what makes you think they won't run fast on it too?

    And what would be so rubbish about Bol running 51.5? She's run 52.03 and every race she has run this season has been at least .4 faster than what she ran on the same tracks at the same point in time a year ago.

    I don't know what your last sentence has to do with anything said on here.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X