Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lance Alworth

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Lance Alworth

    Can anyone verify Alworth's track marks at Arkansas? I read somewhere he was 9.6 100 yards, 21.2 220 (straight) and 22 feet and change in the Long Jump. I also heard he was 35" in the sargent jump.
    Matt Gottlieb

  • #2
    Re: Lance Alworth

    Originally posted by cecil9sm
    Can anyone verify Alworth's track marks at Arkansas? I read somewhere he was 9.6 100 yards, 21.2 220 (straight) and 22 feet and change in the Long Jump. I also heard he was 35" in the sargent jump.
    If ya Google ...Lance Alworth 9.6...you'll find a lot of sites talking about it but you need an actual listing of all high schoolers 100 times in the years he was in high school. He was suppose to have ran that in HS. Wikepedia has him at 10.6...haha!

    I've read where Billy Cannon was a 9.4 guy, nope he was a 9.5 guy.

    I will say this having have seen him play many times, he was a 9.6 guy, no doubt about it. The smoothest receiver ever. He was a running back at Arkansas.

    The first AFLer to be inducted into the HOF.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Lance Alworth

      My off-the-head recollection is that Alworth may have made the T&FN lists in the 200 at one point.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Lance Alworth

        There is a reason that footballers are clocked in the 40 and it is because there is a big difference between a trackman and a football player. A trackman has to be able to run a full 100. He needs to have strength to do that. A footballer needs quickness, which on the gridiron is more effective than 100 speed. Look at this guy Golden Tate from Seattle. He was marginal in track, but his quickness on the field in short bursts is as exciting as it gets.
        "Who's Kidding Who?"

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Lance Alworth

          Originally posted by mrbowie
          There is a reason that footballers are clocked in the 40 and it is because there is a big difference between a trackman and a football player. A trackman has to be able to run a full 100. He needs to have strength to do that. A footballer needs quickness, which on the gridiron is more effective than 100 speed. Look at this guy Golden Tate from Seattle. He was marginal in track, but his quickness on the field in short bursts is as exciting as it gets.
          Yes and no. That long range 100 type speed does play a part in kick returns and at speed receiver. Not so much everywhere else, there it is more about quicks and a burst.

          Carl Lewis would blow Rocket Ismail away in any sprint, yet on a football field it's the Rocket who plays faster.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Lance Alworth

            He was a deep threat that never got run down by a db , in the 1960s that probably equates to at least a 9.6 on dirt.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Lance Alworth

              Originally posted by user4
              He was a deep threat that never got run down by a db , in the 1960s that probably equates to at least a 9.6 on dirt.
              There used to be a great Alworth youtube video, it's gone.

              I was watching both the AFL and NFL back then, while you couldn't really tell about the other AFLers as far as ....could they do that in the NFL...that wasn't true about Alworth, it was real obvious he was the best receiver in all of football. The guy was so smooth, so fluid and made it look effortless.

              I don't know if he ever ran a legit 9.6 but I have no doubts he had that kind of speed or even faster.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Lance Alworth

                Alworth ran 9.7 as a 19 year-old sophomore in Fayetteville on 4 May 1960 in a dual meet. In High School Track was his 4th sport. In 1961 and 1962 he didn't compete outdoors, so the 9.7 was his quickest

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Lance Alworth

                  Absolutely great receiver... but lets be realistic, .. he was no Don Hutson.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Lance Alworth

                    Originally posted by user4
                    Absolutely great receiver... but lets be realistic, .. he was no Don Hutson.
                    Don Hutson never had to deal with the quality and speed of the defensive backs that Alworth had to contend with. Hutson was a 9.8 guy and I seriously doubt he ever lined up vs anyone who could break a 10.0. The game was far slower back then for the obvious reason. That's why I don't put too much into what was done back then.

                    Hutson played 11 seasons and caught 488 passes, he had but one 1000 yard season he did however score 99 tds.

                    Alworth also played 11 seasns, he caught 542 passes, had seven 1000 yd seasons and scored 85tds. And that was done vs a higher quality of athlete.

                    Hutson caught over 60 passes in a season....once, Alworth...six times.

                    We do have to say this however.....Don Hutson was the first great receiver and nobody could stop him, he was a rare athlete for the times.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Lance Alworth

                      Originally posted by rhymans
                      Alworth ran 9.7 as a 19 year-old sophomore in Fayetteville on 4 May 1960 in a dual meet. In High School Track was his 4th sport. In 1961 and 1962 he didn't compete outdoors, so the 9.7 was his quickest
                      This is from 1960. It does list those who ran a 9.6, no Lance Alworth. I also checked 1959...nope.

                      http://archive.dyestat.com/ATHLETICS/TR ... 960tfn.htm

                      I guess 9.7 it is.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Lance Alworth

                        Dixon, your analysis of Hutson is way off, Hutson played far fewer games per season. Lance Alworth was great , Don Hutson was far better. Put Don on a 1964 groomed field and he does the same things he did in the 40s. Hutson never owed his greatness to his footspeed, he was not the fastest guy on the field. Great ball players know where to be and then have the wheels to get there and it goes double for receivers.

                        Great video out there about Lance's relationship with his father. I find it amazing when these guys cant recognize that it was their own father's harshness that was the greatest gift to their athletic career.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Lance Alworth

                          Originally posted by user4
                          I find it amazing when these guys cant recognize that it was their own father's harshness that was the greatest gift to their athletic career.
                          But was it worth it?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Lance Alworth

                            Originally posted by runforlife
                            Originally posted by user4
                            I find it amazing when these guys cant recognize that it was their own father's harshness that was the greatest gift to their athletic career.
                            But was it worth it?
                            You sir are wise beyond your years .

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Lance Alworth

                              Originally posted by user4
                              Dixon, your analysis of Hutson is way off, Hutson played far fewer games per season. Lance Alworth was great , Don Hutson was far better. Put Don on a 1964 groomed field and he does the same things he did in the 40s. Hutson never owed his greatness to his footspeed, he was not the fastest guy on the field. Great ball players know where to be and then have the wheels to get there and it goes double for receivers.

                              Great video out there about Lance's relationship with his father. I find it amazing when these guys cant recognize that it was their own father's harshness that was the greatest gift to their athletic career.
                              Have to disagree about Hutson not being the fastest player on the field, as ya know the sprints are my baby, I don't know of any NFer from that era faster than Don Hutson. Keep in mind in his day the WR was 9.4 and he was a 9.8 guy.

                              If we look at Alworth after 50 games and Hutson after 50 it's not even close, but..but..it was a different game back then. Both were great and there is no need to debate who was better.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X