has there been a computerized analysis

[qixmaster]

,,,of how today's sprinter(not off the charts BOLT) would do back in 1936? forget the training methods, just the equipment and conditions...which should be easily calibrated.
or
owens calculated on today's track/equipment.

could be easily assertained by a sprinter running several sprints on a dirt track for starters.

[gh]

Re: has there been a computerized analysis

the problem is that while most synthetic track are (no matter what the different manufacturers may tell you) pretty much the same, but "dirt" tracks were prone to massive differences, because there was no standard of composition (dirt, cinders, clay; a mix thereof). And the amount (or lack) of recent rainfall made all the difference in the world.

Wouldn't surprise me to find a "standard" dirt track of the '30s being as much as 0.3 faster/slower than another over 100m, depnding on the composition/conditions.

In other words, any such calculations are completely impossible.

(if you ever run on a variety of them, you'll understand what I mean)

[qixmaster]

Re: has there been a computerized analysis

i did a google image search for "spiked track shoes 1930", and here's the result https://www.google.com/search?q=spiked+ ... 85&bih=497

all i can say is WOW. forget how they grip,,,i would think he had to contend with drag...those spikes look almost 1" long, and note how the toe spikes are bent forward,, probably from pulling the spike out of the dirt. so i was thinking, not only are the shoes/spikes shorter but they're shorter because they can accommodate a better surface.

[Marlow]

Re: has there been a computerized analysis

those spikes look almost 1" long

My HS track was cinders, which could sometimes get rather loose, and it was routine to change out our spikes depending on the consistency of the surface. I had 1" spikes and thought of myself as especially badass when I ran in them (though I strenuously doubt anyone else thought so!).

[no one]

Re: has there been a computerized analysis

ran on many 'dirt' tracks that were just that -dirt with major ruts, unevenness and slippery sections. There were also some (clay?) tracks that were more uniform. Know of one HS guy who ran a dual meet 880 in 1:51.9 on the worst of surfaces, 2nd place was ~2:05. And if it rained, which it did ... Suppose this reinforces gh post info. Going from that to Balboa stadium was, I guess an improvement, but it had its minuses.

[Alan Shank]

Re: has there been a computerized analysis

ran on many 'dirt' tracks that were just that -dirt with major ruts, unevenness and slippery sections. There were also some (clay?) tracks that were more uniform.

I ran at Valley State College (now Cal St. Northridge) in 1965, when the "track" was dirt and actually had downhill and uphill straightaways. Training on it was like cross country! The school actually had the gall to conduct dual meets on it!
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA, USA

[no one]

Re: has there been a computerized analysis

I ran at Valley State College (now Cal St. Northridge) in 1965, when the "track" was dirt and actually had downhill and uphill straightaways. Training on it was like cross country! The school actually had the gall to conduct dual meets on it!
Cheers,
Alan Shank

ahhhh - I thought I recognized your name ... over the internet years. Don't remember too many details tho. I had a brother who ran @ same College same Year (I'm pretty sure). Quite an athlete until he badly broke his foot, just before (jr yr in HS - I think). Never regained same level of abilities. Valley State fits into the category of track surface I referred to - although it got a pretty nice all weather some time later.

[Alan Shank]

Re: has there been a computerized analysis

Valley State fits into the category of track surface I referred to - although it got a pretty nice all weather some time later.

Well, it was one of the rubberized asphalt tracks. I ran on it a couple of times. Later, though, the Granada Hills earthquake caused it to split here and there. Later, later, I think they got a decent facility.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA, USA

[26mi235]

Re: has there been a computerized analysis

I ran on some really bad dirt tracks in the army/basic training (Fort Ord) in the early 70s). Nothing else compared (negatively) with those. Lose surface, elevation gains of up to 20 feet (or more? it has bee a long time). Running a 5:30 mile in combat boots/fatigues on those tracks was an accomplishment.