Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    Re: What if?

    Originally posted by Texas
    What if?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Bob Hayes sticks around until 1968.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Charlie Greene-Jimmy Hines-John Carlos-Tommie Smith run the 4x1 at the 68 Olympics.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    If he's the best ever as you stated, and I can't disagree with, then why not him on the '68 4x1?
    I'm not big on What if's but can be interesting to think about.
    If Jimmy hadn't been tripped in '72 or Henry moved to NZ to train under Lydiard after the '64 OG. Lydiard said that he'd have broken the mile record with consummate ease. Just some that come to mind.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Que Sera...

      Originally posted by bijanc
      .....

      Woody Strode had entered the 1940 U.S. decathlon trials as originally planned (in his memoir, he says Bob Richards could beat him in all the speed events, but he usually bested Richards in the power events- and quotes a contemporary news source that mentions them as being comparable in talent),,.....
      This makes no sense at all. Strode was 12 years older than Richards. Richards was all of 14 in 1940.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Texas
        Originally posted by scratchman
        Originally posted by Texas
        The U.S. used King Carl as a 4 x 100 anchor in Atlanta.
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        Canada did not face our "A" team. If they had of they lose.

        Let's run the race...

        Drummond gives the USA a meter as he did.
        Leroy Burrell..,.gains a meter on Gilbert (right here is where the race was lost, Gilbert destroyed Harden. He does not detroy Leroy Burrell. Who was probably the best second leg ever)
        Mitchell...gains a meter on Surin
        Now Lewis has three meters on Bailey. Yes Bailey gains on him all the way but comes up a bit short.

        USA WINS!
        I don't know about 3rd, man.
        Surin ran that thing like a man posessed. If that had been the '92 Mitchell, I'd have no doubt. But that was one of the best bends I'd ever seen. I know who woulda equalized it, tho.....MJ!!! The man simply could NOT be denied in '96. He woulda handled Surin. But I do believe the race wouldve been waaaaaaaay closer with what you have. King Carl takes no prisoners on anchor. Hell, I don't know if Bailey gains on Carl. Why?? Cuz at the '97 Texas Relays, he didnt gain an inch on him, and he quit halfway down. Grabbed the hammy, remember? Tell me something, "if" they were on the same relay, who'd you anchor with...Carl or Bob Hayes?
        Ewwwwww! :shock: :shock:
        If you recall Mitchell was the top American in 96 and a monster on a third leg of a 4x1. Probably the best ever at that position. Surin was only a 10.0 guy in 96 and while a great 3rd leg himself I don't see him on a par with Mitchell.

        Bailey wasn't really all that in 1996. He lost more than he won, he just ran a great 100m when it counted the most, so I can see where you're coming from. Lewis was at the end of his career in 96 and not what he once was. I can see Bailey full of confidence with the advantage in 96. Lewis would need a bit of a lead, no not much but a little. I see him getting that and hanging on. Yes in his prime he smokes Bailey on a 4x1 anchor all things being equal.

        Bob Hayes in my opinion is the fastest human to ever walk the face of the earth. Put in back in 1936 and he blows Jesse Owens away, but him in 1988 and he dusts Carl Lewis. But him in 2008 and he...hmmm.....could Bob Hayes run a 9.67 with all the advantages he'd have over 1964..hell yes! I'd have to go with Hayes over anybody on a 4x1 anchor all things being equal.

        Hayes was 5-11 190 pounds. He was as physically imposing as anyone. All he'd need is modern training techniques, nutrition and those speedy tracks.
        Yes...Mitchell was the Oly Trial Champ.
        But his open 100 does not necessarily mean he would've taken down Surin on a relay leg. Plenty of guys are better at relays than they are open and have matched or even beaten people who best them in open races as we all have seen, correct? I could go with Mitchell as best ever third (until Tyson Gay). But Bruny was on a different wavelength in that particular race. As for the Bullet, he is definitely one of the best to ever do it....But I'd still anchor with Lewis. I don't believe anyone was better. He belongs 4th. Hayes would be my 2 leg if they were on the same relay. I'd anchor Hayes over anybody else...Greene, Bailey, Powell, JJ Johnson, anybody. But not Carl. And as for Owens? The man ran on dirt with no blocks. I think a better question is what if Owens had the advantages of Hayes' era? I'd still probably give Bullet the edge. But dont underestimate Owens and what he didnt have in the 30's. Not to mention, he did more events than Hayes. I'd love to see what Carl Lewis, with all his natural ability, couldve done in this era. I liken him to an '06 Justin Gatlin. He was a much better technician than Bolt is in the 100, though I dont know if Ive seen anyone as naturally gifted as Bolt. Mo Greene, to me, still remains the most complete 100m man in history at putting all 4 phases of the race together (RT, start, drive, top end). Its always been my opinion that he was a natural born lead-off. But his heart and ego fit an anchorman. Im with Carl Lewis in his opinion of what the relay order shoulda been in 04:
        Gatlin
        Greene
        Miller
        Crawford
        We woulda taken the gold. Still almost did.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by scratchman
          Originally posted by Texas
          Originally posted by scratchman
          Originally posted by Texas
          The U.S. used King Carl as a 4 x 100 anchor in Atlanta.
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Canada did not face our "A" team. If they had of they lose.

          Let's run the race...

          Drummond gives the USA a meter as he did.
          Leroy Burrell..,.gains a meter on Gilbert (right here is where the race was lost, Gilbert destroyed Harden. He does not detroy Leroy Burrell. Who was probably the best second leg ever)
          Mitchell...gains a meter on Surin
          Now Lewis has three meters on Bailey. Yes Bailey gains on him all the way but comes up a bit short.

          USA WINS!
          I don't know about 3rd, man.
          Surin ran that thing like a man posessed. If that had been the '92 Mitchell, I'd have no doubt. But that was one of the best bends I'd ever seen. I know who woulda equalized it, tho.....MJ!!! The man simply could NOT be denied in '96. He woulda handled Surin. But I do believe the race wouldve been waaaaaaaay closer with what you have. King Carl takes no prisoners on anchor. Hell, I don't know if Bailey gains on Carl. Why?? Cuz at the '97 Texas Relays, he didnt gain an inch on him, and he quit halfway down. Grabbed the hammy, remember? Tell me something, "if" they were on the same relay, who'd you anchor with...Carl or Bob Hayes?
          Ewwwwww! :shock: :shock:
          If you recall Mitchell was the top American in 96 and a monster on a third leg of a 4x1. Probably the best ever at that position. Surin was only a 10.0 guy in 96 and while a great 3rd leg himself I don't see him on a par with Mitchell.

          Bailey wasn't really all that in 1996. He lost more than he won, he just ran a great 100m when it counted the most, so I can see where you're coming from. Lewis was at the end of his career in 96 and not what he once was. I can see Bailey full of confidence with the advantage in 96. Lewis would need a bit of a lead, no not much but a little. I see him getting that and hanging on. Yes in his prime he smokes Bailey on a 4x1 anchor all things being equal.

          Bob Hayes in my opinion is the fastest human to ever walk the face of the earth. Put in back in 1936 and he blows Jesse Owens away, but him in 1988 and he dusts Carl Lewis. But him in 2008 and he...hmmm.....could Bob Hayes run a 9.67 with all the advantages he'd have over 1964..hell yes! I'd have to go with Hayes over anybody on a 4x1 anchor all things being equal.

          Hayes was 5-11 190 pounds. He was as physically imposing as anyone. All he'd need is modern training techniques, nutrition and those speedy tracks.
          Yes...Mitchell was the Oly Trial Champ.
          But his open 100 does not necessarily mean he would've taken down Surin on a relay leg. Plenty of guys are better at relays than they are open and have matched or even beaten people who best them in open races as we all have seen, correct? I could go with Mitchell as best ever third (until Tyson Gay). But Bruny was on a different wavelength in that particular race. As for the Bullet, he is definitely one of the best to ever do it....But I'd still anchor with Lewis. I don't believe anyone was better. He belongs 4th. Hayes would be my 2 leg if they were on the same relay. I'd anchor Hayes over anybody else...Greene, Bailey, Powell, JJ Johnson, anybody. But not Carl. And as for Owens? The man ran on dirt with no blocks. I think a better question is what if Owens had the advantages of Hayes' era? I'd still probably give Bullet the edge. But dont underestimate Owens and what he didnt have in the 30's. Not to mention, he did more events than Hayes. I'd love to see what Carl Lewis, with all his natural ability, couldve done in this era. I liken him to an '06 Justin Gatlin. He was a much better technician than Bolt is in the 100, though I dont know if Ive seen anyone as naturally gifted as Bolt. Mo Greene, to me, still remains the most complete 100m man in history at putting all 4 phases of the race together (RT, start, drive, top end). Its always been my opinion that he was a natural born lead-off. But his heart and ego fit an anchorman. Im with Carl Lewis in his opinion of what the relay order shoulda been in 04:
          Gatlin
          Greene
          Miller
          Crawford
          We woulda taken the gold. Still almost did.
          In 96 Surin had yet to run a sub10 while Mitchell ran a 9.91 and had beaten Bailey a couple times. There is nothing that points to Surin as being the superior anything.

          Bob Hayes also ran on dirt in the 60's. His 10.06 is too far superior to Owens 10.2 which is what-10.44 or so, to make a case for Owens running with Hayes. What big advantages did sprinters have in the 60's?

          Hard to figure Carl Lewis because of his long jumping. If he'd just ran the sprints I have little doubt he'd been a 9.79 guy in the 80's.

          The thing about Hayes was his physique and what he was doing on dirt tracks. Unlike Owens he was as physically imposing as any sprinter. We also have to look at his age. Where was Lewis at 22? We never saw Hayes at 24-28. We saw him as just a college guy. If he can run a 10.06 on dirt with no competition at 22, imagine what he could have done at 26 on a modern surface.

          I'm not going to go back and forth over this. We have no way of really knowing what would have happend "if", all we can do is guess and speculate, a game that never proves a whole hell of alot.

          Comment


          • #20
            [quote="Texas"][Bob Hayes also ran on dirt in the 60's. His 10.06 is too far superior to Owens 10.2 which is what-10.44 or so, to make a case for Owens running with Hayes. What big advantages did sprinters have in the 60's?(/quote]

            The initial widespread usage of performance enhancing drugs, in an era when they were neither illegal nor tested for.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Rog
              Originally posted by Texas
              [Bob Hayes also ran on dirt in the 60's. His 10.06 is too far superior to Owens 10.2 which is what-10.44 or so, to make a case for Owens running with Hayes. What big advantages did sprinters have in the 60's?(/quote]

              The initial widespread usage of performance enhancing drugs, in an era when they were neither illegal nor tested for.
              Bob Hayes was using PED's? Hahahahahahahaha....that's funny :lol: The guy was runing fast as a little kid, he was a stud in high school. Do you honestly believe a guy who knew he wasn't going to be a pro trackster actually saw a need to.....hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on man..sheesh!

              Hayes went to Florida A&M. Do you really believe his coach......

              Come on man!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Texas
                Originally posted by scratchman
                Originally posted by Texas
                Originally posted by scratchman
                Originally posted by Texas
                The U.S. used King Carl as a 4 x 100 anchor in Atlanta.
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                Canada did not face our "A" team. If they had of they lose.

                Let's run the race...

                Drummond gives the USA a meter as he did.
                Leroy Burrell..,.gains a meter on Gilbert (right here is where the race was lost, Gilbert destroyed Harden. He does not detroy Leroy Burrell. Who was probably the best second leg ever)
                Mitchell...gains a meter on Surin
                Now Lewis has three meters on Bailey. Yes Bailey gains on him all the way but comes up a bit short.

                USA WINS!
                I don't know about 3rd, man.
                Surin ran that thing like a man posessed. If that had been the '92 Mitchell, I'd have no doubt. But that was one of the best bends I'd ever seen. I know who woulda equalized it, tho.....MJ!!! The man simply could NOT be denied in '96. He woulda handled Surin. But I do believe the race wouldve been waaaaaaaay closer with what you have. King Carl takes no prisoners on anchor. Hell, I don't know if Bailey gains on Carl. Why?? Cuz at the '97 Texas Relays, he didnt gain an inch on him, and he quit halfway down. Grabbed the hammy, remember? Tell me something, "if" they were on the same relay, who'd you anchor with...Carl or Bob Hayes?
                Ewwwwww! :shock: :shock:
                If you recall Mitchell was the top American in 96 and a monster on a third leg of a 4x1. Probably the best ever at that position. Surin was only a 10.0 guy in 96 and while a great 3rd leg himself I don't see him on a par with Mitchell.

                Bailey wasn't really all that in 1996. He lost more than he won, he just ran a great 100m when it counted the most, so I can see where you're coming from. Lewis was at the end of his career in 96 and not what he once was. I can see Bailey full of confidence with the advantage in 96. Lewis would need a bit of a lead, no not much but a little. I see him getting that and hanging on. Yes in his prime he smokes Bailey on a 4x1 anchor all things being equal.

                Bob Hayes in my opinion is the fastest human to ever walk the face of the earth. Put in back in 1936 and he blows Jesse Owens away, but him in 1988 and he dusts Carl Lewis. But him in 2008 and he...hmmm.....could Bob Hayes run a 9.67 with all the advantages he'd have over 1964..hell yes! I'd have to go with Hayes over anybody on a 4x1 anchor all things being equal.

                Hayes was 5-11 190 pounds. He was as physically imposing as anyone. All he'd need is modern training techniques, nutrition and those speedy tracks.
                Yes...Mitchell was the Oly Trial Champ.
                But his open 100 does not necessarily mean he would've taken down Surin on a relay leg. Plenty of guys are better at relays than they are open and have matched or even beaten people who best them in open races as we all have seen, correct? I could go with Mitchell as best ever third (until Tyson Gay). But Bruny was on a different wavelength in that particular race. As for the Bullet, he is definitely one of the best to ever do it....But I'd still anchor with Lewis. I don't believe anyone was better. He belongs 4th. Hayes would be my 2 leg if they were on the same relay. I'd anchor Hayes over anybody else...Greene, Bailey, Powell, JJ Johnson, anybody. But not Carl. And as for Owens? The man ran on dirt with no blocks. I think a better question is what if Owens had the advantages of Hayes' era? I'd still probably give Bullet the edge. But dont underestimate Owens and what he didnt have in the 30's. Not to mention, he did more events than Hayes. I'd love to see what Carl Lewis, with all his natural ability, couldve done in this era. I liken him to an '06 Justin Gatlin. He was a much better technician than Bolt is in the 100, though I dont know if Ive seen anyone as naturally gifted as Bolt. Mo Greene, to me, still remains the most complete 100m man in history at putting all 4 phases of the race together (RT, start, drive, top end). Its always been my opinion that he was a natural born lead-off. But his heart and ego fit an anchorman. Im with Carl Lewis in his opinion of what the relay order shoulda been in 04:
                Gatlin
                Greene
                Miller
                Crawford
                We woulda taken the gold. Still almost did.
                In 96 Surin had yet to run a sub10 while Mitchell ran a 9.91 and had beaten Bailey a couple times. There is nothing that points to Surin as being the superior anything.

                Bob Hayes also ran on dirt in the 60's. His 10.06 is too far superior to Owens 10.2 which is what-10.44 or so, to make a case for Owens running with Hayes. What big advantages did sprinters have in the 60's?

                Hard to figure Carl Lewis because of his long jumping. If he'd just ran the sprints I have little doubt he'd been a 9.79 guy in the 80's.

                The thing about Hayes was his physique and what he was doing on dirt tracks. Unlike Owens he was as physically imposing as any sprinter. We also have to look at his age. Where was Lewis at 22? We never saw Hayes at 24-28. We saw him as just a college guy. If he can run a 10.06 on dirt with no competition at 22, imagine what he could have done at 26 on a modern surface.

                I'm not going to go back and forth over this. We have no way of really knowing what would have happend "if", all we can do is guess and speculate, a game that never proves a whole hell of alot.
                On Surin...
                I never said he was superior to Mitchell. I said in THAT PARTICULAR RACE, he was on another level as a bend runner. The other thing I stated clearly is that there are runners who dont fair that well in open events, but on relays bust races wide open, sometimes beating people faster than they are. Is that true or not?
                On Hayes and Owens....
                I'd say things were waaaaaaaaaay better for Hayes than they were for Owens. I did say Hayes had starting blocks, did I not? So that's worth a 10th of a sec, at least. And since Owens was a MUCH better started than Hayes, I'd say with blocks, he hits 10.0. I also said Owens did more events than Hayes. And there
                was way more available for Hayes in terms of opportunities for blacks to make money in sports. Owens was as poor as the dirt he ran on. Had to eat fried eggs in the backseat of a car on his way to meets. Raced horses, etc. Not to mention he didnt have nearly the support of his own country as Hayes did in the 60's, let alone facing Hitler and the Nazi regime. So hell yeah...Hayes had it better. Carl had it better than Hayes. Greene had it better than Carl. Bolt has it better than Greene. I dont think anyone can argue that.
                We dont need to go back and forth on "ifs" because those points I mentioned are facts. These guys were all great- in their time. They all "had it better" than the previous guy. But I agree....its fun to imagine.

                Comment


                • #23
                  On Surin...
                  I never said he was superior to Mitchell. I said in THAT PARTICULAR RACE, he was on another level as a bend runner. The other thing I stated clearly is that there are runners who dont fair that well in open events, but on relays bust races wide open, sometimes beating people faster than they are. Is that true or not?
                  ~~~~~~~~~~

                  I don't see Surin running a better bend than what Mitchell would have ran in that particular race. Mitchell was the superior 200m man as well.

                  As far as Owens/Hayes/Lewis goes. I see Hayes as being the more "naturally gifted" and all things being equal the best of them. He was certainly the more powerful. He was the more physical and was in with far better talent than what Owens faced. If we but him in the 80's at around 26-28 on those tracks with Lewis I see him being his superior in the 100m. Keep in mind Hayes was only 21/22 in 1964. We never saw him with years of experience like we did Lewis.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Texas
                    On Surin...
                    I never said he was superior to Mitchell. I said in THAT PARTICULAR RACE, he was on another level as a bend runner. The other thing I stated clearly is that there are runners who dont fair that well in open events, but on relays bust races wide open, sometimes beating people faster than they are. Is that true or not?
                    ~~~~~~~~~~

                    I don't see Surin running a better bend than what Mitchell would have ran in that particular race. Mitchell was the superior 200m man as well.

                    As far as Owens/Hayes/Lewis goes. I see Hayes as being the more "naturally gifted" and all things being equal the best of them. He was certainly the more powerful. He was the more physical and was in with far better talent than what Owens faced. If we but him in the 80's at around 26-28 on those tracks with Lewis I see him being his superior in the 100m. Keep in mind Hayes was only 21/22 in 1964. We never saw him with years of experience like we did Lewis.
                    What made him more naturally gifted than Carl or Owens?
                    Especially since they both did more track events, namely the long jump...and took gold. Owens even hurdled at one point. And Carl most certainly couldve triple jumped or high jumped. I could agree with Hayes' power. But I disagree with him being more of natural than Carl. No way! I agree if Hayes had stayed in track, there's no telling what he'd have done.
                    .....But what if Carl only focused on the 100?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by eldrick
                      rough rule i get from seeing a lot of anchor splits & comparing to open 100s is that the flying leg takes away the start &

                      your anchor + 1.00s

                      is ~ what you shoud run in an open 100 with excellent start
                      Originally posted by epelle, [05.06.18 12.07
                      ]Fresno Relays announcer April 1989 stated on the end of the men:s 4x100m relay that Quincy Watts ran his anchor leg in 8,6 seconds (in a close runner-up race to the finish with TCU:s Raymond Stewart -- who ran a 9,97 open four weeks later in Waco).
                      Watts was a 9,6-9,7 guy?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by scratchman
                        Originally posted by Texas
                        On Surin...
                        I never said he was superior to Mitchell. I said in THAT PARTICULAR RACE, he was on another level as a bend runner. The other thing I stated clearly is that there are runners who dont fair that well in open events, but on relays bust races wide open, sometimes beating people faster than they are. Is that true or not?
                        ~~~~~~~~~~

                        I don't see Surin running a better bend than what Mitchell would have ran in that particular race. Mitchell was the superior 200m man as well.

                        As far as Owens/Hayes/Lewis goes. I see Hayes as being the more "naturally gifted" and all things being equal the best of them. He was certainly the more powerful. He was the more physical and was in with far better talent than what Owens faced. If we but him in the 80's at around 26-28 on those tracks with Lewis I see him being his superior in the 100m. Keep in mind Hayes was only 21/22 in 1964. We never saw him with years of experience like we did Lewis.
                        What made him more naturally gifted than Carl or Owens?
                        Especially since they both did more track events, namely the long jump...and took gold. Owens even hurdled at one point. And Carl most certainly couldve triple jumped or high jumped. I could agree with Hayes' power. But I disagree with him being more of natural than Carl. No way! I agree if Hayes had stayed in track, there's no telling what he'd have done.
                        .....But what if Carl only focused on the 100?
                        Hayes was not only a star trackster he was also a star in baseball, basketball and football. He just happened to be the world's fastest human.....also. He was the better all around athlete and had that power. If all three had been born and raised on some farm in Idaho it would have been Bob Hayes who would have been the stud athlete. Put the three together in any era and Hayes rules. everything but the hurdles and the long jump.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: What if?

                          Originally posted by Texas
                          What if?
                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                          Usain Bolt had started off running the 100m.

                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          He'd not likely consider making a go at the 400m world record.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Texas
                            Originally posted by scratchman
                            Originally posted by Texas
                            On Surin...
                            I never said he was superior to Mitchell. I said in THAT PARTICULAR RACE, he was on another level as a bend runner. The other thing I stated clearly is that there are runners who dont fair that well in open events, but on relays bust races wide open, sometimes beating people faster than they are. Is that true or not?
                            ~~~~~~~~~~

                            I don't see Surin running a better bend than what Mitchell would have ran in that particular race. Mitchell was the superior 200m man as well.

                            As far as Owens/Hayes/Lewis goes. I see Hayes as being the more "naturally gifted" and all things being equal the best of them. He was certainly the more powerful. He was the more physical and was in with far better talent than what Owens faced. If we but him in the 80's at around 26-28 on those tracks with Lewis I see him being his superior in the 100m. Keep in mind Hayes was only 21/22 in 1964. We never saw him with years of experience like we did Lewis.
                            What made him more naturally gifted than Carl or Owens?
                            Especially since they both did more track events, namely the long jump...and took gold. Owens even hurdled at one point. And Carl most certainly couldve triple jumped or high jumped. I could agree with Hayes' power. But I disagree with him being more of natural than Carl. No way! I agree if Hayes had stayed in track, there's no telling what he'd have done.
                            .....But what if Carl only focused on the 100?
                            Hayes was not only a star trackster he was also a star in baseball, basketball and football. He just happened to be the world's fastest human.....also. He was the better all around athlete and had that power. If all three had been born and raised on some farm in Idaho it would have been Bob Hayes who would have been the stud athlete. Put the three together in any era and Hayes rules. everything but the hurdles and the long jump.
                            When I said naturally gifted, I meant in track.
                            I'm sure Hayes was a better all around athlete when you add in other sports.
                            ...But we're talking track, right?
                            Hayes' natural ability in track was not superior to Carl's or Owens'.
                            I don't see Hayes "ruling" Carl in any era.
                            Period.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by scratchman
                              Originally posted by Texas
                              Originally posted by scratchman
                              Originally posted by Texas
                              On Surin...
                              I never said he was superior to Mitchell. I said in THAT PARTICULAR RACE, he was on another level as a bend runner. The other thing I stated clearly is that there are runners who dont fair that well in open events, but on relays bust races wide open, sometimes beating people faster than they are. Is that true or not?
                              ~~~~~~~~~~

                              I don't see Surin running a better bend than what Mitchell would have ran in that particular race. Mitchell was the superior 200m man as well.

                              As far as Owens/Hayes/Lewis goes. I see Hayes as being the more "naturally gifted" and all things being equal the best of them. He was certainly the more powerful. He was the more physical and was in with far better talent than what Owens faced. If we but him in the 80's at around 26-28 on those tracks with Lewis I see him being his superior in the 100m. Keep in mind Hayes was only 21/22 in 1964. We never saw him with years of experience like we did Lewis.
                              What made him more naturally gifted than Carl or Owens?
                              Especially since they both did more track events, namely the long jump...and took gold. Owens even hurdled at one point. And Carl most certainly couldve triple jumped or high jumped. I could agree with Hayes' power. But I disagree with him being more of natural than Carl. No way! I agree if Hayes had stayed in track, there's no telling what he'd have done.
                              .....But what if Carl only focused on the 100?
                              Hayes was not only a star trackster he was also a star in baseball, basketball and football. He just happened to be the world's fastest human.....also. He was the better all around athlete and had that power. If all three had been born and raised on some farm in Idaho it would have been Bob Hayes who would have been the stud athlete. Put the three together in any era and Hayes rules. everything but the hurdles and the long jump.
                              When I said naturally gifted, I meant in track.
                              I'm sure Hayes was a better all around athlete when you add in other sports.
                              ...But we're talking track, right?
                              Hayes' natural ability in track was not superior to Carl's or Owens'.
                              I don't see Hayes "ruling" Carl in any era.
                              Period.
                              That's your opinion, I have a different one. We saw Hayes run far faster than Owens did on dirt tracks. We saw Lewis in his 30's while only seeing Hayes in his early 20's. Hayes was faster than Owens on dirt and faster than Lewis at 22. Once again.."all things being equal"...it;s Hayes.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Texas
                                Originally posted by scratchman
                                Originally posted by Texas
                                Originally posted by scratchman
                                Originally posted by Texas
                                On Surin...
                                I never said he was superior to Mitchell. I said in THAT PARTICULAR RACE, he was on another level as a bend runner. The other thing I stated clearly is that there are runners who dont fair that well in open events, but on relays bust races wide open, sometimes beating people faster than they are. Is that true or not?
                                ~~~~~~~~~~

                                I don't see Surin running a better bend than what Mitchell would have ran in that particular race. Mitchell was the superior 200m man as well.

                                As far as Owens/Hayes/Lewis goes. I see Hayes as being the more "naturally gifted" and all things being equal the best of them. He was certainly the more powerful. He was the more physical and was in with far better talent than what Owens faced. If we but him in the 80's at around 26-28 on those tracks with Lewis I see him being his superior in the 100m. Keep in mind Hayes was only 21/22 in 1964. We never saw him with years of experience like we did Lewis.
                                What made him more naturally gifted than Carl or Owens?
                                Especially since they both did more track events, namely the long jump...and took gold. Owens even hurdled at one point. And Carl most certainly couldve triple jumped or high jumped. I could agree with Hayes' power. But I disagree with him being more of natural than Carl. No way! I agree if Hayes had stayed in track, there's no telling what he'd have done.
                                .....But what if Carl only focused on the 100?
                                Hayes was not only a star trackster he was also a star in baseball, basketball and football. He just happened to be the world's fastest human.....also. He was the better all around athlete and had that power. If all three had been born and raised on some farm in Idaho it would have been Bob Hayes who would have been the stud athlete. Put the three together in any era and Hayes rules. everything but the hurdles and the long jump.
                                When I said naturally gifted, I meant in track.
                                I'm sure Hayes was a better all around athlete when you add in other sports.
                                ...But we're talking track, right?
                                Hayes' natural ability in track was not superior to Carl's or Owens'.
                                I don't see Hayes "ruling" Carl in any era.
                                Period.
                                That's your opinion, I have a different one. We saw Hayes run far faster than Owens did on dirt tracks. We saw Lewis in his 30's while only seeing Hayes in his early 20's. Hayes was faster than Owens on dirt and faster than Lewis at 22. Once again.."all things being equal"...it;s Hayes.
                                Not that equal.
                                Hayes had blocks....Owens didnt.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X