Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1956: Rafer, Milt or Mathias

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by bambam
    . Of all time, I pick Thorpe, but narrowly over Johnson. .
    Thorpe was undeniably a great multi-sport athlete and head and shoulders above his comtemporary decathletes but how would his performances have scored against current world class decathetes?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by lonewolf
      Thorpe was undeniably a great multi-sport athlete and head and shoulders above his comtemporary decathletes but how would his performances have scored against current world class decathetes?
      That's not the operative question. Had he been born in 1980 and trained as a decathlete today, how would he score? My guess: scary high.

      Comment


      • #33
        we are comparing Milt and Rafer's best in their mid-20s vs Mathias's best from 17-21. Assuming he would have stayed around another 4-8 years, I think Mathias would be the best of the 3.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Marlow
          Originally posted by lonewolf
          Thorpe was undeniably a great multi-sport athlete and head and shoulders above his comtemporary decathletes but how would his performances have scored against current world class decathetes?
          That's not the operative question. Had he been born in 1980 and trained as a decathlete today, how would he score? My guess: scary high.
          Agree completely.

          Comment


          • #35
            And I, without studying it deeply, disagree strongly. To me, there's nothing in his native skills, as I understand them, that suggest he would be that good. I don't see the speed and jumping ability that's required. Just a damned fine all-around athlete, but not one capable of hanging with the big boys of today, time-machine transfer and all.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by gh
              And I, without studying it deeply, disagree strongly. To me, there's nothing in his native skills, as I understand them, that suggest he would be that good. I don't see the speed and jumping ability that's required. Just a damned fine all-around athlete, but not one capable of hanging with the big boys of today, time-machine transfer and all.
              We've had this discussion before. Just look at far he was ahead of the athletes of his time. World class in the hurdles, high jump, long jump. The Stockholm record was not broken until 1928, and he never did the event again. His only effort at the all-around shattered that record as well. Zarnowski doesn't agree with you on this either, E. Garry.

              Comment

              Working...
              X