View All Posts: HUGE_GUY

ChrisMcCarthy said:When did he get the best 20 time?

ChrisMcCarthy said:Yeah - you wouldn't pick Bolt if the race was 40 yards.

ChrisMcCarthy said:I believe the 40 yard times in the combines do not include reaction time.

Owens ran a 10.2 hand-timed.

luki said:
I was reading this the other day:
http://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_get...
"In 1936, Jesse Owens held the world record in the 100 meters. Had Jesse Owens been racing last year in the world championships of the 100 meters, when Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt finished, Owens would have still had 14 feet to go. That's a lot in sprinter land. To give you a sense of how much it is, I want to share with you a demonstration conceived by sports scientist Ross Tucker. Now picture the stadium last year at the world championships of the 100 meters: thousands of fans waiting with baited breath to see Usain Bolt, the fastest man in history; flashbulbs popping as the nine fastest men in the world coil themselves into their blocks. And I want you to pretend that Jesse Owens is in that race. Now close your eyes for a second and picture the race. Bang! The gun goes off. An American sprinter jumps out to the front. Usain Bolt starts to catch him. Usain Bolt passes him, and as the runners come to the finish, you'll hear a beep as each man crosses the line. (Beeps) That's the entire finish of the race. You can open your eyes now. That first beep was Usain Bolt. That last beep was Jesse Owens. Listen to it again. (Beeps) When you think of it like that, it's not that big a difference, is it? And then consider that Usain Bolt started by propelling himself out of blocks down a specially fabricated carpet designed to allow him to travel as fast as humanly possible. Jesse Owens, on the other hand, ran on cinders, the ash from burnt wood, and that soft surface stole far more energy from his legs as he ran. Rather than blocks, Jesse Owens had a gardening trowel that he had to use to dig holes in the cinders to start from. Biomechanical analysis of the speed of Owens' joints shows that had been running on the same surface as Bolt, he wouldn't have been 14 feet behind, he would have been within one stride. Rather than the last beep, Owens would have been the second beep. Listen to it again. (Beeps) That's the difference track surface technology has made, and it's done it throughout the running world. "
The swimming was interesting too.

Cuddles said:Steve - I think the track issue is an interesting one. I wonder if anyone has done any analysis of track speeds because it's common knowledge that there are 'fast' tracks. I wonder if all tracks are now faster than they were? Not a suggestion, as I have no idea.

Steve said:
As an athlete what would you say was the reason for the big improvements in running times if 0.2 is a correct estimate by Conte? After all it's not just Moscow where 10.2 was still a good time. In LA 10.2 (10.19 for second & 10.24 for third) was good enough to medal at the Olympics.
In 1988 in the infamous 100 final the times were still nothing like we see today. Christie, a known cheat, eventually came second in a time of 9.97. That might suggest, given Contes estimate of 0.2 that he was around a 10.2 runner naturally.
Even by 2000 Dwain Chambers was managing 4th in the Olympics in a seasons best of 10.08, again suggesting his natural time might have been nearer 10.2.
Steroid use was certainly very widespread in many sports at that stage and much easier to get away with. Have tracks and training really improved that much that we should believe that sub 10 second times are now possible naturally?

Cuddles said:
I'm trying to work out if you're being deliberately obtuse or my hangover is affecting my ability to communicate simple things.
The teenager who I am talking about, who ran 10.2, without the use of drugs has never 'shown us historically' that he cheats. Hell he hadn't even had any real specific spring training. He played football. What has happened in the past, in his sport, has f**k all to do with him or whether or not his performance was drug induced. in the grand scheme of things it isn't that fast

ChrisMcCarthy said:
Probably not, but Kazankina ran 3:52.47 in 1980, so even ignoring the Chinese marks that has been a soft World Record for a good while.

Steve said:
When leaked blood tests show certain countries have far larger numbers of suspicious results, whilst it doesn't prove any individual is guilt surely proves there is a serious problem in the country?

Luke82 said:
This is interesting stuff.
So someone who has low exercise tolerance needs less work in order to progress (good) but may not make as much progress as others due to being able to handle less volume and therefore having a lower magnitude of adaption (bad)?

AMH_Power said:
Didn't Ilya Ilin take 9 month off lifting then come back outrageous?

Nimble said:
Have you been to the doctor? That would seem like the first thing to do