Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Michael Carter

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Marlow
    once you're out there in never-never-land (mid-70s), a 4-foot PR is not as big a deal as a 2-foot PR down in the 40s, and people have them all the time.
    Oh, really? Like which people?
    Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Powell
      Originally posted by Marlow
      once you're out there in never-never-land (mid-70s), a 4-foot PR is not as big a deal as a 2-foot PR down in the 40s, and people have them all the time.
      Oh, really? Like which people?
      Am I on Candid Camera? Now you think a 2-foot PR for someone throwing in the 40s is a big-deal? HSers, because they're developing, collegians because they are lifting more and refining technique, and post-collegians because they are solely devoted to the SP for the first time - often get PRs in big chunks. No one is surprised Carter threw HUGE. It's just odd to see a SP result with an 8 first. Just like the recent HS WT of 90+ feet!

      Comment


      • #33
        In 1957, Clark Branson set the prep shotput record at 64' 3/4" which was nearly a 14' improvement over his jr. year. Pretty impressive improvement.

        Comment


        • #34
          Anyone remember 1960, when Nieder had thrown 63'10 " for a WR, then a few weeks later let loose with a... hold your hats.... 65'7" ?? When I read it in the newspaper I thought it was a misprint. Then he proved that it was no fluke by adding 3 more inches at a pre-olympic meet... Walnut I think.

          To repeat, no "flukes' in the SP.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by dukehjsteve
            Anyone remember 1960, when Nieder had thrown 63'10 " for a WR, then a few weeks later let loose with a... hold your hats.... 65'7" ?? When I read it in the newspaper I thought it was a misprint. Then he proved that it was no fluke by adding 3 more inches at a pre-olympic meet... Walnut I think.

            To repeat, no "flukes' in the SP.
            But that was an improvement of less than 2 feet, and as you said, he backed it up later in the season. What would you have though if after the two 65ers he suddenly popped a 69-6 and then didn't break 66 again for the remainder of the season?
            Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Powell
              Originally posted by dukehjsteve
              Anyone remember 1960, when Nieder had thrown 63'10 " for a WR, then a few weeks later let loose with a... hold your hats.... 65'7" ?? When I read it in the newspaper I thought it was a misprint. Then he proved that it was no fluke by adding 3 more inches at a pre-olympic meet... Walnut I think.

              To repeat, no "flukes' in the SP.
              But that was an improvement of less than 2 feet, and as you said, he backed it up later in the season. What would you have though if after the two 65ers he suddenly popped a 69-6 and then didn't break 66 again for the remainder of the season?
              16 vs 12 pounder. Apples and oranges . . .

              Comment


              • #37
                " ... talking Golden West Invitational -- a place the best high school grade-12 athletes compete against one another.'

                While the GWI was THE post-season meet in the (far) past, it has apparently been relegated to something far different today. I eagerly attended the GWI a few years ago, as I had lived out of state for many yrs, and I was almost shell shocked. There were a smattering of spectators - my guesstimate ~500 or less. And the level of competition was limited to a few outstanding marks here and there. I was almost sad at the state of things. I guess it is/was a sign of the times in the track world. (the attendance at the NCAAs @ Sac St a few days later was likewise). You can never go home.

                Comment


                • #38
                  (new post)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    one possibilty is that carter as a college kid back in '80s didn't exactly have sophisticated biomechanical studies to give him feedback about trajectories, etc

                    i did a rough'n'ready estimate using some projectile software & it indicates an ideal trajectory of ~ 45 degrees for some ballpark inputs gives 25.3m, whereas just 7 degrees higher at 52 degrees ( may not have been very discernible to coach's eye ) gives 24.1m, a difference of 4'

                    it's possible carter was tending to always throw an overly high angle ( not by much ), but when he dropped his angle by 7 degrees for that 1 time, he got the max distance

                    try this

                    http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph11e/projectile.htm

                    with 2.50m release height, 15m/s speed & various angles between 35 - 55 degrees

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Marlow
                      Originally posted by Powell
                      You've already said that. And you still have not answered my simple question: apart from Carter, have you ever heard of a SPer (at any level of competition) with a season's best 4 feet farther than their second best? Please reply with a simple 'yes' or 'no'. Thank you in advance.
                      The problem here is that Carter was SOOOO much better than anyone else, he probably habitually underperformed. Plus, once you're out there in never-never-land (mid-70s), a 4-foot PR is not as big a deal as a 2-foot PR down in the 40s, and people have them all the time.
                      Presumably, the 40' thrower has so many areas to improve that a 2' pr is expected. Is it likely that the 77' thrower has many areas left to improve? I would call that performance a fluke. Even if it is a fluke, Carter is still the GOAT. Even if Mr. Carter had not thrown 81', wouldn't his next best throw have made him been the best ever?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Dave
                        Even if Mr. Carter had not thrown 81', wouldn't his next best throw have made him been the best ever?
                        Easily. Carter has nine of the top ten tosses of all time. Brent Noon sneaks into the number five slot with a 76-2 in 1990. When Carter was done competing the number two thrower was Sam Walker with a 72-3ΒΌ from 1968.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Dave
                          Is it likely that the 77' thrower has many areas left to improve? I would call that performance a fluke.
                          When you're already out there at 77', it doesn't take that much more (mechanically) to goose it to 81'. His finger-tip snap at the end could probably do it! I'm in the no-fluke camp when it comes to muscling 12-pound shots around. Hohn throwing the Jav 340+ feet - freak wind - fluke. Schult, 240+ in the DT, likewise. SP, not so much.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Marlow
                            Originally posted by Dave
                            Is it likely that the 77' thrower has many areas left to improve? I would call that performance a fluke.
                            When you're already out there at 77', it doesn't take that much more (mechanically) to goose it to 81'. His finger-tip snap at the end could probably do it! I'm in the no-fluke camp when it comes to muscling 12-pound shots around. Hohn throwing the Jav 340+ feet - freak wind - fluke. Schult, 240+ in the DT, likewise. SP, not so much.
                            I am not buying your argument. 4/77 = 5.19%. Let's imagine that in other events.

                            J'Mee Samuels goes from 10.1 to 9.6 in HS?

                            Webb runs 3:48 after running his 3:53 at Pre in 2001(I think it was).

                            Tommy Skipper goes from 18'3" to 19' 3" in one day.

                            Dion Bentley pops an unexpected 28' jump.

                            A 5% improvement for someone who is the best there has ever been is a fluke. It doesn't detract from their accomplishments but it still a complete outlier.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Dave
                              A 5% improvement for someone who is the best there has ever been is a fluke. It doesn't detract from their accomplishments but it still a complete outlier.
                              Yes, totally an outlier! And if that's what you mean by fluke, then I'll agree. But a 'fluke', to me indicates more than that, that it was somehow unwarranted or unmerited, which I think everyone agrees, Carter had it in him. Hohn (despite his awesomeness!) and Schult, not so much.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by eldrick
                                he used 12 pounds compared to 16 for seniors

                                a bit of basic physics estimates the same kinetic energy applied to a 16lb shot as it takes to throw 12lb, 81'3"

                                = ~ 81'3" * (12/16)^0.5 = 21.45m

                                which is not bad, but not 22m+
                                Unfortunately, I think your distance calculation/estimation is incorrect (it's late and the brain is tired). If we assume Carter can put the same amount of energy into a heavier shot, at the same angle, then to estimate the distance, multiply by the reciprocal of ratio of the weights . In this case, multiply by (12/16) rather than Sqrt(12/16). This ignores the fact that the release height isn't 0, and gets him around 18.6m with a 16lb shot.

                                I can go through the derivation if you wish. I think an easy(ish) way to think about it is this:

                                --distance is proportional to velocity squared (with a constant release angle)
                                --kinetic energy (E_k) is proportional to mass times velocity squared
                                --to keep E_k constant as the mass increases, the velocity must change by the reciprocal of the square root of the ratio of which the mass changed
                                --plugging the new velocity back into a distance equation, the velocity gets squared, bringing the amount by which the distance changed back to the reciprocal of ratio by which the mass changed

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X