Case in point - Ami wTJ


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby batonless relay » Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:07 am

Marlow wrote:
batonless relay wrote:Coaches, even the very good ones (especially the very good ones?), tend to pound round pegs into square holes. Whatever that coaches respective specialty might be, s/he's going to mold athletes to fit it

You seem to have a very dim view of coaches.
A. Most (esp. the better ones) coaches can coach a variety of events; there are really only three (and a half) areas: sprints/hurdles/jumps, distance, throws. (Pole Vault is the half event).
One-event coaches surely thrive at the top, but that's because they attract people who have already done very well in the event. Even Clyde Hart only takes on proven talent (and performance).
B. Most coaches (esp. good ones) seek out the BEST event for their athletes, not just the one they 'like' the most. Both athlete and coach are looking to maximize potential.

I don't have a dim view of coaches, I just don't have an inflated one of marginal coaches. And you're wrong about most good coaches; most good coaches specialize. Mike Holloway won XC State while at Buchholz a few years, yet he coaches sprints and hurdles (doesn't do much distance coaching now); Loren Seagrave coachs sprint/hurdles/jumps; Alberto Salazar coaches distance. Don't see too many throws coaches working with distance runners or sprinters (though I can think of one who could). Which brings me to your point that most coaches CAN coach a variety of events; 3.5 was the number you came up with. Well, if one of the events is American wTJ, then they might want to forgo the other 2.5.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby mal » Fri Jun 21, 2013 1:49 pm

MDelano wrote:The men are doing fine in the TJ, so how can one blame the coaches?


"men" ?

A couple are. But this is a country of over 300 million people. All well fed, educated and with people hovering over them looking for a bandwagon to get rolling. Even if they head into football, many / most have access to track and field coaching in the high school.

Its easy to say that the pro / major sports steal your athletes, but there should be plenty left in this enormous talent pool.

I'd say the lack of success is equally sub-standard coaching, to go with athletes heading into pro sports.

Though to take an example, Demps is coming back from football. I wouldn't be expecting him to pressure the Jamaicans.

The USA has become a country of high expectations coupled with high entitlement.

Your coaching is only as good as the athletes you turn out. That means we're going through a dry period or a period of decline.
mal
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby Marlow » Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:22 pm

mal wrote:Your coaching is only as good as the athletes you turn out.

I'd invert that to say that for the outside observer, 'your coaching is only as good as the athletes you get.' Any competent coach can take an athletic freak and make him/her a champion. A truly superb coach can take an average athlete and make him good, not great. On the other hand, it was the Marra/Eaton marriage that produced that herculean offspring; they both needed to be superb.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21130
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby mal » Sun Jun 23, 2013 5:53 am

Marlow wrote:
mal wrote:Your coaching is only as good as the athletes you turn out.

I'd invert that to say that for the outside observer, 'your coaching is only as good as the athletes you get.' Any competent coach can take an athletic freak and make him/her a champion. A truly superb coach can take an average athlete and make him good, not great. On the other hand, it was the Marra/Eaton marriage that produced that herculean offspring; they both needed to be superb.



In my experience racing and coaching, I think the physical talent is a lot closer than people think. I think the biggest differentiation is in the mental capability. Whether its handling the intensity of the sessions, or the consistency, or the technical guidance. Or the racing pressures. I think the physical ability is a lot more common.

I am not saying that everyone is a superstar, but that the talent in the top 1% is pretty regular.

I don't think there are any 'true' athletic freaks. Just people who are able to get at their talent a little more regularly. Gay drags more out of himself than anyone I have ever seen.

Coaching an athletic freak puts more pressure on the coach than the athlete.
So I'll repeat, you are only as good as the results you get. No excellence is guaranteed, and freaky physical talent may have zero mental ability. Million dollar legs 10 cent brains.

My old coach used to say 'there are world champions walking the streets never knowing they were good at something'
mal
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby Marlow » Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:14 am

mal wrote:I think the biggest differentiation is in the mental capability. Whether its handling the intensity of the sessions, or the consistency, or the technical guidance. Or the racing pressures.

Mental is indeed a HUGE factor. I'd characterize it more as 'motivation'. How badly do they want it?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21130
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby mal » Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:15 am

Marlow wrote:
mal wrote:I think the biggest differentiation is in the mental capability. Whether its handling the intensity of the sessions, or the consistency, or the technical guidance. Or the racing pressures.

Mental is indeed a HUGE factor. I'd characterize it more as 'motivation'. How badly do they want it?


Somewhat, but if you ask anyone, they all want it. But there is a steeliness and focus that goes beyond mere motivation. That is a far more rare resource to work with. And sacrifice. Something not so common today.

If it was about physical ability you could probably not bother to have the race. You could pencil in the winners. However, physical talent is far more common than people recognize.
mal
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby Marlow » Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:21 am

mal wrote: if you ask anyone, they all want it.

Talk is cheap. The ones who REALLY want it, put in the extra (hard) work in the weight room and on the track to get every ounce of ability out of themselves. That is a VERY rare commodity.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21130
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby mal » Sun Jun 23, 2013 12:26 pm

Marlow wrote:
mal wrote: if you ask anyone, they all want it.

Talk is cheap. The ones who REALLY want it, put in the extra (hard) work in the weight room and on the track to get every ounce of ability out of themselves. That is a VERY rare commodity.


Exactly. And there are a lot of inexpensive athletes 'trying' to make it.

Athletes today are much more 'needy' than in the past. When I was running we (I) had complete disinterest in future financial security. Now there is so much money around in all sports than its hard to compete and not have some expectations of 'comfort".

There's not enough desperation. And in some cases selective racing plays right into that lack.
mal
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby batonless relay » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:38 am

mal wrote:In my experience racing and coaching, I think the physical talent is a lot closer than people think. I think the biggest differentiation is in the mental capability. Whether its handling the intensity of the sessions, or the consistency, or the technical guidance. Or the racing pressures. I think the physical ability is a lot more common.

I am not saying that everyone is a superstar, but that the talent in the top 1% is pretty regular.

I don't think there are any 'true' athletic freaks. Just people who are able to get at their talent a little more regularly. Gay drags more out of himself than anyone I have ever seen.

Coaching an athletic freak puts more pressure on the coach than the athlete.
So I'll repeat, you are only as good as the results you get. No excellence is guaranteed, and freaky physical talent may have zero mental ability. Million dollar legs 10 cent brains.

My old coach used to say 'there are world champions walking the streets never knowing they were good at something'

Amen, mal! It sometimes scares me that Marlow is a coach. Some of his views are so narrow ...cynical even; it's like someone who has been too close to something for too long with limited/no success. There are many athletes, especially on the high school/age-group level that he inhabits, that are only inhibited by the rules that coaches like Marlow keep in place. Transfer rules, season start rules ... they seem more concerned with their jobs than the kids performances.

As you said, the difference between humans is not that great and kids become VERY interested in the things that they become good at. But they need real coaches to help them find their excellence; unfortunately, you have too many coaches looking for the "messiah" athlete - the athlete who doesn't need coaching, which is appropriate since they won't get coaching with those type of coaches. Because, long before you can question how bad they want it, you have the put the strength and technical ability in place for them to understand if the goal is worth pursuing. This is where most high school coaches fall down; they don't know enough or know what they don't know to get the kids to a place where they can start believing - up until then you're only dealing with "natural" talents and the social grapplers.

wTJ in America is failing because the women don't have to be coached to score at conference meets because the standard is so incredibly low. It's become a near perfect self-feeding cycle. The worst part is the coaches who maintain that "everything's fine".
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby Marlow » Wed Jun 26, 2013 5:29 am

batonless relay wrote:Amen, mal! It sometimes scares me that Marlow is a coach. Some of his views are so narrow ...cynical even; it's like someone who has been too close to something for too long with limited/no success. There are many athletes, especially on the high school/age-group level that he inhabits, that are only inhibited by the rules that coaches like Marlow keep in place. Transfer rules, season start rules ... they seem more concerned with their jobs than the kids performances.

You really are a piece of . . . work, aren't you? Cosmically clueless. The ads hominems only disserve your purpose, such that it is.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21130
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby batonless relay » Wed Jun 26, 2013 5:35 am

Marlow wrote:
batonless relay wrote:Amen, mal! It sometimes scares me that Marlow is a coach. Some of his views are so narrow ...cynical even; it's like someone who has been too close to something for too long with limited/no success. There are many athletes, especially on the high school/age-group level that he inhabits, that are only inhibited by the rules that coaches like Marlow keep in place. Transfer rules, season start rules ... they seem more concerned with their jobs than the kids performances.

You really are a piece of . . . work, aren't you? Cosmically clueless. The ads hominems only disserve your purpose, such that it is.

Marlow, ...those are NOT ad hominems, those are your attributes; if you don't like them, change them. And, "cosmically clueless" would definitely be an ad hominem, or do you not see that either?
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby Marlow » Wed Jun 26, 2013 5:46 am

batonless relay wrote:
Marlow wrote:
batonless relay wrote:Amen, mal! It sometimes scares me that Marlow is a coach. Some of his views are so narrow ...cynical even; it's like someone who has been too close to something for too long with limited/no success. There are many athletes, especially on the high school/age-group level that he inhabits, that are only inhibited by the rules that coaches like Marlow keep in place. Transfer rules, season start rules ... they seem more concerned with their jobs than the kids performances.

You really are a piece of . . . work, aren't you? Cosmically clueless. The ads hominems only disserve your purpose, such that it is.

Marlow, ...those are NOT ad hominems, those are your attributes; if you don't like them, change them. And, "cosmically clueless" would definitely be an ad hominem, or do you not see that either?

Semantics is not your strong suit. As for the 'clueless' comment, I was referring to your observations, not you, but I'm beginning to suspect . . .
When you said this recently to JRM:
batonless relay wrote:Hypocrite is a word I want you to look up. It will help you in your every day life. No, really, trust me.

and this to 26:
batonless relay wrote:26, I know others have said this of you, so don't take it personally - some times you're posts are nearly unintelligible due to your excess rhetoric.


I see the problem.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21130
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby batonless relay » Wed Jun 26, 2013 6:16 am

Marlow, I really want you to recognize that you usually DON'T ... see the problem. You're too busy self-appointing yourself something or other expert with Stanford, navy, coach, whatever being your credentials. yet, despite your self-credentialing, you haven't accomplished anything. You know don't know what you don't know and you're too bottled up to see beyond yourself.

You think you're out-clevering everyone but the facts are what they are: great high school coaches turn out great high school talent. Where's yours? I read in a thread in the historical section of this very forum viewtopic.php?f=5&t=51080 where a high school had 3 athletes under 9:00 and that was damn near 40 years ago! That was a confluence of talent and geography? That was just "motivation"? That was just "them wanting it more"? No, that was something that you can't seem to accept; that was superior coaching!! 3 students from the same high school! You can't imagine it, i bet. Well, they had a coach, he didn't have to imagine it; he probably BELIEVED it all along. You don't, see how that works?

So you can try to be cute; and when the questions get tough try to out-semantics everyone with the guile of a Stanford educated, high school teacher or you can just admit that you're wrong; that though you try to be helpful and that there may not be a better coach at the school; and that you're doing the best that you can, but stop trying to say that not only are you doing all that you can do (and that others are too) but that you're doing it exceptionally (or even capably, good or great). They're not, you're not and it's offensive when you say that you/they are - especially when the results clearly say something different.

It's not about you, Marlow. Stop making it so.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby Marlow » Wed Jun 26, 2013 6:22 am

batonless relay wrote:Marlow, I really want you to recognize that you usually DON'T ... see the problem.

You're such a little ray of sunshine, brightening our day. We're all so fortunate that you grace us with your presence. I can't possibly match your erudition, so I defer to your judgement in all matters. These repeated tete-a-tetes, which you deny, but try so hard to sustain, are futile, so I'll exit the bus here.

(P.S. What would call a coach who has had a state pole vault champion 8 years out of the last 9?)
Marlow
 
Posts: 21130
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby batonless relay » Wed Jun 26, 2013 6:33 am

Marlow wrote:These repeated tete-a-tetes, which you deny, but try so hard to sustain, are futile, so I'll exit the bus here.

They really only exist in your mind, I've no issue with you...you seem to have the issues with me. Time and time again I ask you questions and rather than answer ... well, you turn into...well into a bit of not so nice person.

You've said that the US needs 11.4 talent for A-standard triple jumping, yet other countries have done it with less. You say that the coaching is as good or better than it is in the other countries yet the US currently doesn't have a single athlete on the B-standard. You say that foreign athletes spend more time with their coaches yet even their juniors, who couldn't have as much time or maturation outperform our seniors. Yet it's NOT coaching?

"mal" entered the conversation to reiterate what I've been telling you every time but you still won't accept it because it doesn't fit your view ... and it's ME? It's not me. The problem needs fixing, stop making excuses. You can keep restarting threads but its starting to read like propaganda; like if you keep your eyes close the reality will change. It's the coaching, Marlow.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby Marlow » Sat Dec 28, 2013 7:36 am

Now we're getting somewhere! The National Scholastic Athletics Foundation's Project Triple Jump Clinics with rising HS stars! See front-page article. :D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21130
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby JumboElliott » Sat Dec 28, 2013 11:07 am

How many 27 foot jumpers are there currently in the NBA/NFL?
50?
100?
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby houstonian » Sat Dec 28, 2013 11:54 am

JumboElliott wrote:How many 27 foot jumpers are there currently in the NBA/NFL?
50?
100?


That is a difficult question to quantify precisely, but fun to speculate. I think you under-value a 27 foot long jump. Jumping 27 feet takes amazing athletic ability, which is not so commonplace.
I will go with 35 ( 25 nba /10 nfl). I think there is roughly ONE 27 foot jumper PER TEAM, in the NBA.

NFL musings:
Marquise Goodwin
Jamaal Charles
Adrian Peterson
Julio Jones
Mike Wallace
Calvin Johnson
Dez Bryant
AJ Green
Ted Ginn
Dwayne Bowe / Marcus Colston
houstonian
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:36 pm

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby Marlow » Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:34 pm

houstonian wrote:That is a difficult question to quantify precisely, but fun to speculate. I think you under-value a 27 foot long jump. Jumping 27 feet takes amazing athletic ability, which is not so commonplace. I will go with 35 ( 25 nba /10 nfl). I think there is roughly ONE 27 foot jumper PER TEAM, in the NBA.

I agree completely!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21130
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby booond » Sun Dec 29, 2013 9:31 am

houstonian wrote:
JumboElliott wrote:How many 27 foot jumpers are there currently in the NBA/NFL?
50?
100?


That is a difficult question to quantify precisely, but fun to speculate. I think you under-value a 27 foot long jump. Jumping 27 feet takes amazing athletic ability, which is not so commonplace.
I will go with 35 ( 25 nba /10 nfl). I think there is roughly ONE 27 foot jumper PER TEAM, in the NBA.

NFL musings:
Marquise Goodwin
Jamaal Charles
Adrian Peterson
Julio Jones
Mike Wallace
Calvin Johnson
Dez Bryant
AJ Green
Ted Ginn
Dwayne Bowe / Marcus Colston


I'd say lower than that and some of the players highlighted are likely too big (slow)- Colston, Bowe, Megatron. Smaller WRs - Goodwin, a perfect example - and cornerbacks fit the profile better. I'd look at fast, point guards with good hops. Allen Iverson, at his prime, might've fit the profile, too.
booond
 
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:25 am

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby lonewolf » Sun Dec 29, 2013 9:49 am

houstonian wrote:[. I think you under-value a 27 foot long jump. Jumping 27 feet takes amazing athletic ability, which is not so commonplace.

True. There have been only a handfull of men who have jumped 29 feet,a double handfull 28 feet and even these guys don't jump 27 feet everytime out.
I don't know how many NHL or NBA have actually jumped 27' feet.. Goodman is the only one I can recall I have personally seen do it...it is a lot easier to speculate that an athlete has the physical tools to jump 27 feet than it is for him to actually do it.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby Marlow » Sun Dec 29, 2013 10:12 am

Even a Megasaurus like LeBron, which his strength, could have LJed 27, if not 28. Jordan too. All those who can drive quickly to the hoop and dunk easily have 27' hops methinks.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21130
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby booond » Sun Dec 29, 2013 10:18 am

Marlow wrote:Even a Megasaurus like LeBron, which his strength, could have LJed 27, if not 28. Jordan too. All those who can drive quickly to the hoop and dunk easily have 27' hops methinks.


I don't recall many 6-8 250 world class long jumpers. I'm not saying there can't be one but not sure he'd generate the speed to carry his weight that far.
booond
 
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:25 am

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby Marlow » Sun Dec 29, 2013 10:52 am

booond wrote:
Marlow wrote:Even a Megasaurus like LeBron, which his strength, could have LJed 27, if not 28. Jordan too. All those who can drive quickly to the hoop and dunk easily have 27' hops methinks.

I don't recall many 6-8 250 world class long jumpers. I'm not saying there can't be one but not sure he'd generate the speed to carry his weight that far.


I learned this in 8th Grade Science:

Momentum = mass x velocity

With a full head of steam, he would have tremendous momentum on a LJ runway. His legs are massively strong, so I don't see a problem creating the angle of attack at the board to describe an arc 27-28 feet long!!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21130
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby rainy.here » Sun Dec 29, 2013 2:17 pm

Marlow wrote:
booond wrote:
Marlow wrote:Even a Megasaurus like LeBron, which his strength, could have LJed 27, if not 28. Jordan too. All those who can drive quickly to the hoop and dunk easily have 27' hops methinks.

I don't recall many 6-8 250 world class long jumpers. I'm not saying there can't be one but not sure he'd generate the speed to carry his weight that far.


I learned this in 8th Grade Science:

Momentum = mass x velocity

With a full head of steam, he would have tremendous momentum on a LJ runway. His legs are massively strong, so I don't see a problem creating the angle of attack at the board to describe an arc 27-28 feet long!!


Momentum doesn't matter here; it's the runway velocity that does. I don't think LeBron can run nearly fast enough to leap 27 feet.
rainy.here
 
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:05 pm

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby Marlow » Sun Dec 29, 2013 2:34 pm

rainy.here wrote:I don't think LeBron can run nearly fast enough to leap 27 feet.

He didn't get to be the pre-eminent American athlete (AP choice) by being slow.
He may not be great at the start at that size, but I bet he can hold his own with a 10.50 sprinter at full tilt. He has the tools to sprint fast: great leg strength (stride length) + fast-responding nervous system (quick turnover).
Marlow
 
Posts: 21130
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby lonewolf » Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:27 pm

Now all we gotta do is get Lebron to try it to vidicate your ..opinion. :)
I remember when Bryce Lamb was projected to be the next great LJer but he is just too big.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby Marlow » Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:32 pm

lonewolf wrote:Now all we gotta do is get Lebron to try it to vidicate your ..opinion. :)

OK, big boy - you're the LJ guru here. Are you familiar enough with LeBron's athleticism to venture a guess at his potential? If you say he couldn't jump 27' with a couple years of expert coaching, I'll retract my conjecture!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21130
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby lonewolf » Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:50 pm

At his present weight, 25' low and done...maybe.. train two years, lose 60-70# , 26' low.. maybe.
If 6-7, 250 # guys could jump 27', somebody would be doing it..
Bolt at 6-5, 210 # could probably jump 27'... 28 ' if he got down to 190#.
Just my opinion...
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby Pego » Mon Dec 30, 2013 5:00 am

lonewolf wrote:At his present weight, 25' low and done...maybe.. train two years, lose 60-70# , 26' low.. maybe.
If 6-7, 250 # guys could jump 27', somebody would be doing it..
Bolt at 6-5, 210 # could probably jump 27'... 28 ' if he got down to 190#.
Just my opinion...



And, FWIW, I agree :D .
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby Marlow » Mon Dec 30, 2013 6:09 am

Pego wrote:
lonewolf wrote:At his present weight, 25' low and done...maybe.. train two years, lose 60-70# , 26' low.. maybe.
If 6-7, 250 # guys could jump 27', somebody would be doing it..
Bolt at 6-5, 210 # could probably jump 27'... 28 ' if he got down to 190#.
Just my opinion...

And, FWIW, I agree :D .

All right, all right - I concede!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21130
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby eldanielfire » Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:11 am

Marlow wrote:
rainy.here wrote:I don't think LeBron can run nearly fast enough to leap 27 feet.

He didn't get to be the pre-eminent American athlete (AP choice) by being slow.
He may not be great at the start at that size, but I bet he can hold his own with a 10.50 sprinter at full tilt. He has the tools to sprint fast: great leg strength (stride length) + fast-responding nervous system (quick turnover).



There is fast, reall fast and then Olympic fast. Often fans see NFL, football, Basketball, Rugby players look immense and yet they aren't breaking 11 seconds. Seeing as dunking from the three throw line is seen as immense in Basketball, that is 15 feet, less than 5m and I've never seen even some one jump and lay-up or finger role from there. So unless players are dunking or attempting to dunk from the 3pt line then I doubt they are close to Olympic Long Jump standard. The 3 point line is 23 feet 9 inches (7.24 m), I don't doubt some Basketball players could have in another life with a different path been good long jumpers, but Lebron is far to much of a stocky built to come close.
eldanielfire
 
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:07 am

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby mal » Sat Jan 04, 2014 7:15 am

He's not fast enough for 27 feet.

People like to say basket ballers are the best athletes. But in reality there are no athletes who can do it all. Being a fast basket baller doesn't make you fast. Basketball is more about quickness than speed. He's big and quick, not big and fast. LeBron isn't fast enough.

Michael Jordan wasn't good enough in baseball.

People do what they are best at.
mal
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby Marlow » Sat Jan 04, 2014 7:20 am

mal wrote:People do what they are best at.

No, people do what they're paid the most to do. If LJing were a millionaire sport, not football or basketball, 27' jumps would be routine, 28' jumps would be good, 29' jumps special and there'd be a couple of 30-footers right now.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21130
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby mal » Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:28 am

Marlow wrote:
mal wrote:People do what they are best at.

No, people do what they're paid the most to do. If LJing were a millionaire sport, not football or basketball, 27' jumps would be routine, 28' jumps would be good, 29' jumps special and there'd be a couple of 30-footers right now.


Nope.

They start with what they're best at, and gain the most recognition.

You seem to infer they research for skillsets then focus.

They don't. They hang with their friends, find an exercise they love and hammer it home. Some are fortunate enough to make money at it. You forget the benefits of worship.

Long jumpers aren't uncommon, and there are many of us who love the contest. However there are far more who love the other events and gain far more from the experience. In fact a family member was there 45 years ago. 45 years ago. 27 feet. pphft.

Sports excellence is not accountancy. You can't be great at something you don't love, and are prepared to sacrifice for.
mal
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby Marlow » Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:44 am

mal wrote:
Marlow wrote:
mal wrote:People do what they are best at.

No, people do what they're paid the most to do. If LJing were a millionaire sport, not football or basketball, 27' jumps would be routine, 28' jumps would be good, 29' jumps special and there'd be a couple of 30-footers right now.

Nope.
They start with what they're best at, and gain the most recognition.

Nope.
Thousands (!) of 5-6-7-8 year-olds are excellent at soccer in this country. They start to get great recognition at 12-13-14, but most don't stick with it, because other sports seduce them away with the allure of even greater glory. IF (!) all great athletes tried LJing and the very good ones stayed for the money (the premise of my supposition above), my statement about 27-28-29-footers would be true.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21130
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby Pego » Wed Jan 08, 2014 1:03 pm

Marlow wrote: because other sports seduce them away with the allure of even greater glory


When the time schedule no longer allowed for both, my grandson chose baseball over soccer. He simply liked it better. I have no intention to generalize, this is simply a personal observation.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby AS » Wed Jan 08, 2014 2:48 pm

MLJ is a curious event internationally for the diversity of nations that pop up with a jumper of WC/OG final quality.

Just look at the list from the last seven years of TFN rankings:

Russia
Mexico
Holland (really Ghana)
South Africa
Spain
Brazil
Germany
China
Jamaica
Great Britain
Australia
US
Sweden
Zimbabwe
Morocco
Panama
France
Senegal
Saudi Arabia
Cuba
Botswana
Greece
Italy
Ukraine

That's 24 countries filling 70 spots. It says to me that there's loads of folks in 26ft+ space across a variety of locales and that we are very likely finding these folks almost at random. The US surely has a 100+ kids in a given HS year who have the genuine potential to reach such distances with a year or two of dedicated training. But I'm guessing less than half of them have even jumped into a pit in HS, and no more than 5 even get through to college focussing on the horizontal jumps specifically.
AS
 
Posts: 4503
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 1956 Olympic city

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby lonewolf » Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:58 pm

Pego wrote:
Marlow wrote: because other sports seduce them away with the allure of even greater glory


When the time schedule no longer allowed for both, my grandson chose baseball over soccer. He simply liked it better. I have no intention to generalize, this is simply a personal observation.

Yep. Same/opposite deal. Charley Lonewolf, my 12 year old granson, has apparently chosen soccer over basketball (where he enjoyed considerable success and is in continued demand). His decision was undoubtably influenced by the concussion he suffered playing basketball and recognizing he would always be an undersized basketball player but he also just likes playing soccer more.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Case in point - Ami wTJ

Postby mal » Sun Jan 19, 2014 6:14 am

Marlow wrote:
mal wrote:
Marlow wrote:
mal wrote:People do what they are best at.

No, people do what they're paid the most to do. If LJing were a millionaire sport, not football or basketball, 27' jumps would be routine, 28' jumps would be good, 29' jumps special and there'd be a couple of 30-footers right now.

Nope.
They start with what they're best at, and gain the most recognition.

Nope.
Thousands (!) of 5-6-7-8 year-olds are excellent at soccer in this country. They start to get great recognition at 12-13-14, but most don't stick with it, because other sports seduce them away with the allure of even greater glory. IF (!) all great athletes tried LJing and the very good ones stayed for the money (the premise of my supposition above), my statement about 27-28-29-footers would be true.


And if the satisfaction doesn't outweigh the work, they quit. Don't focus on the end. People quit long before they ever start to think about money.
mal
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests