Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jackie Robinson

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Jackie Robinson

    Cool photo of the legend.

    [/img]

  • #2
    Amazing fellow..and UCLA 1-2-3.
    ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

    Comment


    • #3
      Now what I am waiting for is for someone to be able to tell us who the other guys are, and the distances jumped !

      Comment


      • #4
        1940 NCAA results give you some clues

        1940
        (Minneapolis, June 22)
        (heavy rain; held indoors)
        1. Jackie Robinson (UCLA) Sr 24‑10¼
        2. Billy Brown (LSU) Jr 24‑¾
        3. Welles Hodgson (Minnesota) Jr-Sr 23‑11¼
        4. Pat Turner (UCLA) Sr 23‑8
        5. Bill Lacefield (UCLA) Jr 22‑8¼
        6. Walter Arrington (Michigan St) Jr 22‑7
        (7.57, 7.33, 7.29, 7.21, 6.91, 6.88)

        Comment


        • #5
          And in the PCC (now roughly equivalent to Pac-10) meet shown above, Robinson's winning jump was 25-0. I couldn't find any other marks for the placers.

          Comment


          • #6
            amazing how much bigger he got as a pro baseball player.
            ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

            Comment


            • #7
              What was it, seven years later when JR broke went up to the Dodgers' big league team? He'd been in the army and bulked up by then, no longer a four sports guy...

              Comment


              • #8
                PCC Results, Los Angeles (Coliseum), 5/25/1940:

                1, Jackie Robinson (UCLA) 25-0 MR (old MR 24-10 George Boone [USC] '36; this was Robinson's first meet of the year)
                2, Pat Turner (UCLA) 24-4 1/2 or 4 3/4, sources vary)
                3, Bill Lacefield (UCLA) 23-11
                4, Mel Bleeker (USC) 23-7 3/4
                5. Roy Brown (Stan) 23-2 1/4

                Comment


                • #9
                  ...and all three of those Bruin marks would have been god enough to score at last year's Pac-10 meet.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'll let the stat freaks do the analysis/research if they wish, but my 6th sense tells me the Long Jump, nee Broad Jump, has improved the least since pre-WW II, of all events, except maybe the 100, (but that's hard to compare due to h and e timing) That would be at the top level, then at 10th, 25th, and 50th, be it all-time lists or annual lists. And without the advent of tartan runways it would be much narrower.

                    Reason ? It's a "natural" event, with the least technological/coaching improvements possible. And as to tartan vs. cinders, the tartan helped the 3J( nee Hop-Step-Jump ! ) immeasurably more than it helped the LJ/BJ, for obvious reasons.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dukehjsteve
                      Reason ? It's a "natural" event, with the least technological/coaching improvements possible. And as to tartan vs. cinders, the tartan helped the 3J( nee Hop-Step-Jump ! ) immeasurably more than it helped the LJ/BJ, for obvious reasons.
                      not too sure about that

                      ole timers say that a synthetic track was 1s quicker than dirt

                      assume they were ~ 50s guys, that's 1/50 or 2% quicker

                      for any jumps, you'd get 2% better speed & probably 2% better "take-off" from the harder track ( better potential energy return ), giving ~ 1.02^2 = 1.04 improvement

                      i'd suggest dirt-track performances of following woud be on synthetic :

                      8.00m = 8.32m

                      17.00m = 17.68m

                      2.20m = 2.29m

                      looking at wr progression here :

                      http://www.athletix.org/

                      szmidt did 17.03 in '60 - i'd guestimate he'd have been a 17.70 guy just transferred to a synthetic track

                      ralph did 8.35 in '65 - have to say he may have been a 8.70 guy just off that

                      brumel's 2.28 in '63 may have been 2.37m

                      ( neither of this assumes any new training, nutrition, etc, just a simple change of surface )

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        2 points re the above:

                        1. Are we sure Boston's 1965 mark was on a cinder runway ? Better stuff was getting pretty popular by then

                        2. In the 3J, you get to BOUNCE twice ( hop, step) on that rubber runway rather than crunch on cinders ! That's got to be huge.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Nothing scientific about it but artificial surface tracks definitely make a huge difference.
                          Personal experience: I was never a world class athlete but circa 1949-52, age 18-21, I was chasing Thane Baker on cinders running 9.7y.
                          In 1972, age 40-41 and five pounds heavier, I was still chasing Thane in Masters competion running 10.1y on tartan.
                          Gotta believe, all things being equal, I had to have slowed down more than that in twenty years.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Last week, while in Pasadena for the Breeders' Cup, I drove down Washington Boulevard. When I crossed Pepper Street, where Jackie Robinson lived, I got goosebumps.
                            "Who's Kidding Who?"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              About a year ago, I was at a concert and found myself standing five feet away from Rachel Robinson, Jackie's widow. Yes, I recognized her. Yes, I got goose bumps.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X