Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wariner Surpasses Tommie Smith as a headline... huh?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wariner Surpasses Tommie Smith as a headline... huh?

    Wait didnt that 44.64 by Tommie occur in 1966 and on dirt?... The truth is that Wariner is closer to Smith at 200 than he is at 400...and that means none of these guys on that list have passed Tommie.
    ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

  • #2
    Back in my day, we had to walk 6 miles to school in the snow, and it was uphill both ways!

    Comment


    • #3
      It would be nice to compensate in analysis for the track surface (ground support force lost) and foot apparel of those days to what we see and know today. What would be the difference between cinder/dirt tracks and mondo?

      Comment


      • #4
        An impossible task. There is/was no such thing as a standard cinders/brick/dirt track. Each had its own peculiarities in constructions, hardness, consistency and response to wear and weather. I wouldn't be surprised though, if some of the old time tracks at their best matched eldrick's beloved "illegal" tracks of Tokyo and Atlanta for hardness. Not that this would guarantee similar times what with inch long spikes and suchlike......

        Comment


        • #5
          El Toro, you are certainly joking... cinder from 66 matching 96 in Atlanta... nowhere and never.... just to help out, it is not the hardness that matters as much as the losslessness of synthetic (how much energy is recoverd ) . The synthetic tracks of today are lossless relative /compared to the cinder of old....
          ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

          Comment


          • #6
            paulie

            that is a genius post !

            that was one helluva great scientific refutation

            ( for a change ! ( no more "evolution" please ?! ))

            i'd been trying to think for a while for a good argument, but coudn't just think of one - you make it all easy now :

            - cinder scatters under-foot & this "scattering" requires energy & therefore, the energy return is reduced compared to synthetic

            - feet sink significantly more on a loose surface compared to synthetic & therefore more energy is lost on "recovering" out of that extra depth sunk/ extra friction in rising

            modern shoes/spikes accentuate difference between cinder/synthetic, but it's not feasible ever to compare cinders to synthetic

            the obvious question you imply is :

            if cinders were as fast as synthetic ( weather conditions aside ) :

            why change to synthetic ?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by eldrick
              paulie

              ( for a change ! ( no more "evolution" please ?! ))

              ....

              the obvious question you imply is :

              if cinders were as fast as synthetic ( weather conditions aside ) :

              why change to synthetic ?
              Eldy, regarding the synthetic track stuff .. this is very well quantified by those that design and build tracks, someday we will get a 100m dash run in a really lossy cinder track into a 2mps wind and we will know then how much training methods and nutrution and PEDs have improved performances.

              I stand by every statement I made regarding evolution...,..Ill gladly face a relisting of your and my comments on the topic.... on the matter of Wariner in the USATF 200 I have already eaten my crow.
              ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by eldrick
                paulie

                that is a genius post !

                that was one helluva great scientific refutation

                ( for a change ! ( no more "evolution" please ?! ))

                i'd been trying to think for a while for a good argument, but coudn't just think of one - you make it all easy now :

                - cinder scatters under-foot & this "scattering" requires energy & therefore, the energy return is reduced compared to synthetic

                - feet sink significantly more on a loose surface compared to synthetic & therefore more energy is lost on "recovering" out of that extra depth sunk/ extra friction in rising

                modern shoes/spikes accentuate difference between cinder/synthetic, but it's not feasible ever to compare cinders to synthetic

                the obvious question you imply is :

                if cinders were as fast as synthetic ( weather conditions aside ) :

                why change to synthetic ?
                As someone above says, cinder tracks varied considerably. At their very best, they were superb running surfaces--alot of R&D had gone into them over the many decades... Why change to synthetic? Primarily, I'd guess, to cut down on maintenance--a synthetic track is always "ready to go." No preparation, rolling, leveling, and liming needed...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by kuha
                  [As someone above says, cinder tracks varied considerably. At their very best, they were superb running surfaces--alot of R&D had gone into them over the many decades... Why change to synthetic? Primarily, I'd guess, to cut down on maintenance--a synthetic track is always "ready to go." No preparation, rolling, leveling, and liming needed...
                  yes big RandD dollar were spent by all the big track and field cash cows of the 30s, you remember them, Nestle, Yoohoo, Converse, McGregor... they were all there with their white lab coats in Berlin in 35 and at Melbourne in 55 preparing the grounds for the state of the art cinder they were going to lay down in anticipation respectively of Babe Dedrickson and Betty Cuthbert.....

                  and the financial winfall that track had in the 60s with the disposal of all the maintainence costs saved from laying down all those cheap synthetic tracks rocked the spreadsheets at the time..... you remember how every college and HS was signing up to purchase those dirt cheap (no pun intended) synthetic tracks so they wouldnt have to rake cinders every month.


                  and of course the the times that went precipitously down when the runners ran on synthetic was due soley to the fact that having loosed the chains of responsibility for raking cinder from the athletes led to much more time and energy spent training for their events... the athletes of course will tell you that the synthetic surfaces were much faster but dont believe them, it is just the illusion of running with fresh legs when you dont have to rake the cinders every couple of weeks.
                  ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by paulthefan
                    the athletes of course will tell you that the synthetic surfaces were much faster but dont believe them, it is just the illusion of running with fresh legs when you dont have to rake the cinders every couple of weeks.
                    Riiight.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      i've run on cinder and clay tracks in the middle of no where.
                      the variation is great.
                      on the hard clay one, you could really fly.
                      another one was deep in cinders slow as hell.
                      another cinder track was more like a few cinders and mostly hard ground under.
                      god knows what the rest of the world was like.
                      artificial surfaces are much more consistent, but i'm not so sure if the tartan was that much faster than the clay...
                      actually it is impossible for me to say what the difference is.....even between the tracks i ran on.

                      the best i can do on this one is to say that hard clay is not that much slower than tartan...

                      it is possible that the elasticity and friction of some "natural" tracks is not that much different from the average synthetic surface.

                      that said, i'm sure "track correction" is required on many an occasion to compare to today's tracks....

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        it is true that a well kept clay track was faster than cinder... I recall a quote by Morrow to that effect.
                        ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          one important aspect is the base on which the cinder lies

                          nowdayz, synthetic tracks upon some sort of composite base of concrete/cement/base MUST have an overall energy return of no more than 65%

                          it's quite possible that in cinder days, when there was none of this energy return qualification, the base couda been some sort of really hard concrete ( energy return of this alone may be near 90% ) & a loose covering of cinders may actually have given an energy return superior to current regulations ( but the "looseness" aspect of the cinders obviously reduced this )

                          however, i's not inconceivable some cinder tracks were as hard/harder than modern legal requirements

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The other thing to consider is that hardness may not necesarily return more energy through the "human machine". I remember reading some work on this years ago but can't remember anything significant about it except that it's not straightforward. I'm sure there's somebody here that can post a link to the relevant work.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X