Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

eldrick

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    well

    bolt only really has to contend with safa, tyson, dix & thommo

    he 10.00 guys guys get about as much of a look in as the 10.3 guys of yore

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by eldrick
      well

      bolt only really has to contend with safa, tyson, dix & thommo

      he 10.00 guys guys get about as much of a look in as the 10.3 guys of yore
      Look for Bolt to do better than Owens did in major competitions vs better opposition.

      1936 Nationals

      F: 100 meters; S/F: 6/6; D: 04 JUL
      1. Jesse Owens 10.4 =MR
      2. Ralph Metcalfe 10.6e
      3. Samuel Stoller
      4. Foy Draper
      5. Marty Glickman
      6. Ben Johnson
      1935
      F: 100 meters; S/F: 6/6; D: 04 JUL; W: +7.8 mph
      1. Eulace Peacock 10.2w
      2. Ralph Metcalfe 10.3ew
      3. Jesse Owens 10.3ew
      4. George Anderson 10.4ew
      5. Foy Draper
      6. Milton Holt
      Heat 2: Peacock 10.2w.
      1934
      F: 100 meters; S/F: 6/6; D: 30 JUN
      1. Ralph Metcalfe 10.4 MR
      2. Jesse Owens 10.4e
      3. Eulace Peacock
      4. Charles Parsons
      5. Louis Salvato
      6. Ralph Sickel
      1933
      F: 100 meters; S/F: 7/7; D: 30 JUN
      1. Ralph Metcalfe 10.5 MR
      2. James Johnson
      3. Jesse Owens
      4. Paul Starr
      5. Hudson Hellmich
      6. Don Bennett
      1932
      F: 100 meters; S/F: 6/6; D: 16 JUL
      1. Ralph Metcalfe 10.6 =MR(10.62+)
      2. Edward Tolan 1 yd bh
      3. George Simpson 1 ft bh2
      4. Emmett Toppino 6" bh3
      5. Frank Wykoff 6" bh4
      6. James Johnson 6" bh5

      Notice Metcalfe?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Texas
        Originally posted by eldrick
        what's to say metcalfe wasn't also a high-9.8 guy ?

        if you have genetic potential to run fast, rest is just training/nutrition/etc

        america really does have enough population/talent pool to have had at least a coupla "equivalent" 9.8 guys/generation thruout history
        My problem is that I know there weren't all that many who could follow an athlectic career or go to college back then. So the "competition pool" was shallow. Tolan, Metcalfe,Owens and Peacock simply didn't have the flock of competitors like we saw later on. Look at TCU in 1936. Since the 60's they have had a ton of speed. To me it's all about competition. Look at Frankie Fredericks in Namibia. He could win their Nationals up into his what...50's? Jean Louis Ravelomantsoa in Madagascar had who pushing him? Would Owens etc be the stud we saw back then, if there had been as many speesters able to actually compete as we see today? There were how many sub 10.10 guys in 2008? How many sub 9.6/10.3 guys in 1936?

        1936

        1 Jesse Owens USA 10.2
        2 Foy Draper USA 10.3
        2 Sam Stoller USA 10.3
        2 Ralph Metcalfe USA 10.3
        5 Whitley Cox USA 10.4
        5 Adrian Talley USA 10.4
        5 Harvey Wallender USA 10.4
        5 George Boone USA 10.4
        5 Mack Robinson USA 10.4
        10 Rozia Singletary USA 10.5

        All he had to run was a 10.3=10.54 to be competitive.

        Big difference in 2008

        1 Tyson Gay USA 9.77
        2 Travis Padgett USA 9.89
        2 Darvis Patton USA 9.89
        4 Walter Dix USA 9.91
        5 Ivory Williams USA 9.94
        6 Rodney Martin USA 9.95
        7 Mark Jelks USA 9.99
        8 Xavier Carter USA 10.00
        9 Jeffery Demps USA 10.01
        10 Leroy Dixon USA 10.02
        Not looking to get into the fray, but this isn't the best way to prove your point. In 1936 I see a 1-10 difference of 0.3, in 2008 that difference was 0.25. If you look at the 1-9 difference, it's 0.2 in '36, 0.24 in '08.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by dj
          Originally posted by Texas
          Originally posted by eldrick
          what's to say metcalfe wasn't also a high-9.8 guy ?

          if you have genetic potential to run fast, rest is just training/nutrition/etc

          america really does have enough population/talent pool to have had at least a coupla "equivalent" 9.8 guys/generation thruout history
          My problem is that I know there weren't all that many who could follow an athlectic career or go to college back then. So the "competition pool" was shallow. Tolan, Metcalfe,Owens and Peacock simply didn't have the flock of competitors like we saw later on. Look at TCU in 1936. Since the 60's they have had a ton of speed. To me it's all about competition. Look at Frankie Fredericks in Namibia. He could win their Nationals up into his what...50's? Jean Louis Ravelomantsoa in Madagascar had who pushing him? Would Owens etc be the stud we saw back then, if there had been as many speesters able to actually compete as we see today? There were how many sub 10.10 guys in 2008? How many sub 9.6/10.3 guys in 1936?

          1936

          1 Jesse Owens USA 10.2
          2 Foy Draper USA 10.3
          2 Sam Stoller USA 10.3
          2 Ralph Metcalfe USA 10.3
          5 Whitley Cox USA 10.4
          5 Adrian Talley USA 10.4
          5 Harvey Wallender USA 10.4
          5 George Boone USA 10.4
          5 Mack Robinson USA 10.4
          10 Rozia Singletary USA 10.5

          All he had to run was a 10.3=10.54 to be competitive.

          Big difference in 2008

          1 Tyson Gay USA 9.77
          2 Travis Padgett USA 9.89
          2 Darvis Patton USA 9.89
          4 Walter Dix USA 9.91
          5 Ivory Williams USA 9.94
          6 Rodney Martin USA 9.95
          7 Mark Jelks USA 9.99
          8 Xavier Carter USA 10.00
          9 Jeffery Demps USA 10.01
          10 Leroy Dixon USA 10.02
          Not looking to get into the fray, but this isn't the best way to prove your point. In 1936 I see a 1-10 difference of 0.3, in 2008 that difference was 0.25. If you look at the 1-9 difference, it's 0.2 in '36, 0.24 in '08.
          The point was that most the sprinters Owens faced in 36 couldn't even break a 10.64. I don't care how you work things out, that's slow. You better be able to run a quick sub 10.05 in 2008 if you plan on running with the big dawgs. How many 1936 sprinters would have been sub 10.05 in 2008? Ok maybe three.

          Comment


          • #20
            Now, to address an issue that is a little more realisitic, who would win in a fight between Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by jhc68
              Now, to address an issue that is a little more realisitic, who would win in a fight between Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer?
              You've got to remember the roots to the tree.

              James Bond was around in 1953 and he didn't have all these modern day advantages. You just can't leave him out of the conversation. By the time Jason Bourne comes along in 1980 the world has changed. And then when Jack Bauer comes on the scene in 2001 he's something totally new again. The science of torture has improved a great deal in 50 years and they didn't really have computers back then either. You just can't compare. It's apples and oranges. People try to bring guys like James Bond and Jason Bourne into the modern era but it's just a fantasy. They're not really the James Bond and Jason Bourne of old, they're totally different guys. And of course the real James Bond must be, what, in his eighties by now? And Bourne would be in his mid fifties I guess. Things get a bit complicated when you factor in things like it's now seventeen years since Kim Bauer snook out of her room on the day of the Californian presidential primary, so now Jack's probably younger than his own daughter, and still fighting crime, but guys are more athletic today and the talent pool to recruit spies is a lot deeper and the training is more intense than ever since 9-11. Jack Bauer would kick Jason Bourne's ass.

              And when Jack takes out the hacksaw and asks Bourne that all important question - WHO ARE YOU WORKING FOR? - Bourne will squeal like a little baby and admit it's all about trying to be like James Bond. Amnesia is no match for Jack Bauer.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Texas
                The point was that most the sprinters Owens faced in 36 couldn't even break a 10.64. I don't care how you work things out, that's slow. You better be able to run a quick sub 10.05 in 2008 if you plan on running with the big dawgs. How many 1936 sprinters would have been sub 10.05 in 2008? Ok maybe three.
                And how do you know this ? Though I must express glee that today in 2009 you at least acknowledge that there were 3 that could. I think a few years back you had Jesse struggling to make the 2006 HS national final at 100m.
                ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by paulthefan
                  Originally posted by Texas
                  The point was that most the sprinters Owens faced in 36 couldn't even break a 10.64. I don't care how you work things out, that's slow. You better be able to run a quick sub 10.05 in 2008 if you plan on running with the big dawgs. How many 1936 sprinters would have been sub 10.05 in 2008? Ok maybe three.
                  And how do you know this ? Though I must express glee that today in 2009 you at least acknowledge that there were 3 that could. I think a few years back you had Jesse struggling to make the 2006 HS national final at 100m.
                  Jesse rarely faced anyone with sub 10.4 speed. Isn't that 10.64 electro? He had two competitors......Peacock/Metcalfe. Look at the sprint wars in the SEC each and every year. A bevy of sub10.20 guys. Relay teams where the slowest guy can break a 10.30. Owens ran at a time where going to college and being able to be an athlete was totally different that what we now see. Sports wasn't like it is now. Sure for the times he was great. Amazing long jumper. To think however that he would be right there with these 9.85ish guys today...nope! He simply wasn't that fast and wasn't going to be that fast under any circumstances. If we bring him up to 2009 then lets take Usain Bolt back to 1936. It works both ways.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Dakota -- I bow to you! Your analysis is a masterpiece !!! Huzzah!!!

                    So whattya think of my notion of having a Retro-World Championships: run in yards, dirt track, dug-out holes instead of blocks, hand timed ? Then we could get a grip on how Bolt and Jack Bauer would compare to Owens and James Bond.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Texas
                      If we bring him up to 2009 then lets take Usain Bolt back to 1936. It works both ways.
                      of course, one implies the other, Bolt in 1936 is a 10.3 sprinter.
                      ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by paulthefan
                        Originally posted by Texas
                        If we bring him up to 2009 then lets take Usain Bolt back to 1936. It works both ways.
                        of course, one implies the other, Bolt in 1936 is a 10.3 sprinter.
                        Houston McTear was about as raw as raw gets, story goes he was aloof and hated to train. Yep...lazy. If he can run a 9.0 as a high school junior I'm pretty sure Bolt is far faster than a 10.3 in any era. Keep in mind he'd still start out as a 200/400 guy, then get into the 100m later.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by paulthefan
                          Bolt in 1936 is a 10.3 sprinter.
                          In 1936, Bolt probably doesn't sprint and, if he does, he probably doesn't get off the island.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X