has there been a computerized analysis


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

has there been a computerized analysis

Postby qixmaster » Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:41 pm

,,,of how today's sprinter(not off the charts BOLT) would do back in 1936? forget the training methods, just the equipment and conditions...which should be easily calibrated.
or
owens calculated on today's track/equipment.

could be easily assertained by a sprinter running several sprints on a dirt track for starters.
qixmaster
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:24 pm

Re: has there been a computerized analysis

Postby gh » Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:34 pm

the problem is that while most synthetic track are (no matter what the different manufacturers may tell you) pretty much the same, but "dirt" tracks were prone to massive differences, because there was no standard of composition (dirt, cinders, clay; a mix thereof). And the amount (or lack) of recent rainfall made all the difference in the world.

Wouldn't surprise me to find a "standard" dirt track of the '30s being as much as 0.3 faster/slower than another over 100m, depnding on the composition/conditions.

In other words, any such calculations are completely impossible.

(if you ever run on a variety of them, you'll understand what I mean)
gh
 
Posts: 46321
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: has there been a computerized analysis

Postby qixmaster » Fri Jul 12, 2013 9:46 pm

i did a google image search for "spiked track shoes 1930", and here's the result https://www.google.com/search?q=spiked+ ... 85&bih=497

all i can say is WOW. forget how they grip,,,i would think he had to contend with drag...those spikes look almost 1" long, and note how the toe spikes are bent forward,, probably from pulling the spike out of the dirt. so i was thinking, not only are the shoes/spikes shorter but they're shorter because they can accommodate a better surface.
qixmaster
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:24 pm

Re: has there been a computerized analysis

Postby Marlow » Sat Jul 13, 2013 5:49 am

qixmaster wrote:those spikes look almost 1" long

My HS track was cinders, which could sometimes get rather loose, and it was routine to change out our spikes depending on the consistency of the surface. I had 1" spikes and thought of myself as especially badass when I ran in them (though I strenuously doubt anyone else thought so!).
Marlow
 
Posts: 21081
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: has there been a computerized analysis

Postby no one » Sat Jul 13, 2013 6:31 am

ran on many 'dirt' tracks that were just that -dirt with major ruts, unevenness and slippery sections. There were also some (clay?) tracks that were more uniform. Know of one HS guy who ran a dual meet 880 in 1:51.9 on the worst of surfaces, 2nd place was ~2:05. And if it rained, which it did ... Suppose this reinforces gh post info. Going from that to Balboa stadium was, I guess an improvement, but it had its minuses.
no one
 
Posts: 1611
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: has there been a computerized analysis

Postby Alan Shank » Sun Jul 14, 2013 11:41 am

no one wrote:ran on many 'dirt' tracks that were just that -dirt with major ruts, unevenness and slippery sections. There were also some (clay?) tracks that were more uniform.


I ran at Valley State College (now Cal St. Northridge) in 1965, when the "track" was dirt and actually had downhill and uphill straightaways. Training on it was like cross country! The school actually had the gall to conduct dual meets on it!
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA, USA
Alan Shank
 
Posts: 2253
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: N38 40, W 121 52

Re: has there been a computerized analysis

Postby no one » Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:40 pm

Alan Shank wrote:I ran at Valley State College (now Cal St. Northridge) in 1965, when the "track" was dirt and actually had downhill and uphill straightaways. Training on it was like cross country! The school actually had the gall to conduct dual meets on it!
Cheers,
Alan Shank


ahhhh - I thought I recognized your name ... over the internet years. Don't remember too many details tho. I had a brother who ran @ same College same Year (I'm pretty sure). Quite an athlete until he badly broke his foot, just before (jr yr in HS - I think). Never regained same level of abilities. Valley State fits into the category of track surface I referred to - although it got a pretty nice all weather some time later.
no one
 
Posts: 1611
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: has there been a computerized analysis

Postby Alan Shank » Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:25 pm

no one wrote:Valley State fits into the category of track surface I referred to - although it got a pretty nice all weather some time later.


Well, it was one of the rubberized asphalt tracks. I ran on it a couple of times. Later, though, the Granada Hills earthquake caused it to split here and there. Later, later, I think they got a decent facility.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA, USA
Alan Shank
 
Posts: 2253
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: N38 40, W 121 52

Re: has there been a computerized analysis

Postby 26mi235 » Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:41 pm

I ran on some really bad dirt tracks in the army/basic training (Fort Ord) in the early 70s). Nothing else compared (negatively) with those. Lose surface, elevation gains of up to 20 feet (or more? it has bee a long time). Running a 5:30 mile in combat boots/fatigues on those tracks was an accomplishment.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16318
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AirCanada15, Bing [Bot], jjimbojames and 11 guests