Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 64
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    on task
    Posts
    11,054
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmitchell74 View Post
    Johnson with his "implausible deltoid" and all.
    David Oliver had ridiculous delts too.

    https://rodonline.typepad.com/.a/6a0...878a970b-800wi
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Abilene, TX
    Posts
    1,992
    Those 100m finals...such diversity. 😈

    😊
    You there, on the motorbike! Sell me one of your melons!
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #53
    Wasn’t one of Hayes’ 9.1 centuries (yards) run on a tartan surface? 1963 AAU in St. Louis I think. If so, by this logic of modernized surfaces shouldn’t he have run faster (he was clocked 5 times at that time)?
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Fishers, IN
    Posts
    7,498
    [QUOTE=ArchH41;2710974]Wasn’t one of Hayes’ 9.1 centuries (yards) run on a tartan surface? 1963 AAU in St. Louis I think.

    How can anyone ( old enough ! ) forget the headline on TF&N's first page the following month:

    Hayes " Bounces" to 9.1
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    15,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Atticus View Post
    Carl Lewis famously eschewed 'body-building', but I am convinced he could have been faster with more weight-room work. Everyone thinks building mass means weight-gain and inflexibility, but you actually CAN get faster as you get stronger, if you do it right.
    It's quite possible building more mass could have helped his sprinting, but it could have also hurt his LJ results.
    Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #56
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    west of Westeros
    Posts
    60,685
    Quote Originally Posted by ArchH41 View Post
    Wasn’t one of Hayes’ 9.1 centuries (yards) run on a tartan surface? 1963 AAU in St. Louis I think. If so, by this logic of modernized surfaces shouldn’t he have run faster (he was clocked 5 times at that time)?
    hand timing being what it was, who knows the relative value of his 9.1s? Logic says there was probably a vast difference.

    ps--to be precise, the St. Louis 9.1, yes, was on tartan, but not on Tartan, the former becoming the generic term for synthetic tracks with a lower-case t. I believe it was Grasstex.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Abilene, TX
    Posts
    1,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Powell View Post
    It's quite possible building more mass could have helped his sprinting, but it could have also hurt his LJ results.
    hmm...good point...
    You there, on the motorbike! Sell me one of your melons!
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    on task
    Posts
    11,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Powell View Post
    It's quite possible building more mass could have helped his sprinting, but it could have also hurt his LJ results.
    Or, just as easily, improved it.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #59
    Quote Originally Posted by gh View Post
    hand timing being what it was, who knows the relative value of his 9.1s? Logic says there was probably a vast difference.

    ps--to be precise, the St. Louis 9.1, yes, was on tartan, but not on Tartan, the former becoming the generic term for synthetic tracks with a lower-case t. I believe it was Grasstex.
    Working without sources at hand, I believe the auto time on this Hayes mark was 9.39. Compare that to Frank Budd's WR 9.2 from two years earlier, which was 9.36.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #60
    Quote Originally Posted by dj View Post
    Working without sources at hand, I believe the auto time on this Hayes mark was 9.39. Compare that to Frank Budd's WR 9.2 from two years earlier, which was 9.36.
    I'm surprised at 0.29+ on the Hayes difference. Where I have seen the hand and auto times at the high level meets (Olympics go back to at least 1948, don't they?), experienced officials had closer to a 0.1 difference than the sacred 0.24 (or 0.14). My local volunteer timing crews during the transition, well, I just wished they could have stopped anticipating the finish and gotten to near 0.3. I'm sure someone must have done the comparison more scientifically.
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •