I think my problem.........


Forum devoted to track & field items of an historical nature.

Postby Brutal » Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:40 am

SQUACKEE wrote:
Brutal wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:> I just wish people would realize when they are dealing with others who have done the time and accept what they can learn instead of trying to battle<

i just couldnt tell johhny winter to accept that he can learn but not battle. a nearly blind albino sure done got the blues. everybodys got the blues. enough said.


Johnny Winter one of my all time favorites. "Dallas" is bad!!!!!!!


you DO know the blues! :D


What you thought I was talking out my ass? You have know idea just how much I know them old blues. How about 12 big books and over 600 CD's? Hell I have recordings by guys who recorded but one record. Yep a passion of mine. Something about loving the primitive. If he sang them blues, I'm up on him.
Brutal
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Brutal » Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:42 am

EPelle wrote:
Brutal wrote:Ya see I have all their recordings. I just wish people would realize when they are dealing with others who have done the time and accept what they can learn instead of trying to battle...

Brutal, for once you make sense to me. Thanks.


You sure it's me, or your comprehension skills..hahaha!!!!!
Brutal
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby EPelle » Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:47 am

I comprehend much but accept little.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Pego » Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:54 am

How to sing the Blues . . . A Primer

1) Most Blues begin, “Woke up this morning...”

2) “I got a good woman” is a bad way to begin the Blues, ‘less you stick something nasty in the next line like, “I got a good woman, with the meanest face in town.”

3) The Blues is simple. After you get the first line right, repeat it. Then find something that rhymes . . . sort of: “Got a good woman with the meanest face in town. Yes, I got a good woman with the meanest face in town. Got teeth like Margaret Thatcher, and she weigh 500 pound.”

4) The Blues is not about choice. You stuck in a ditch, you stuck in a ditch-ain’t no way out.

5) Blues cars: Chevys, Fords, Cadillacs and broken-down trucks. Blues don’t travel in Volvos, BMWs, or Sport Utility Vehicles. Most Blues transportation is a Greyhound bus or a southbound train. Jet aircraft an’ state-sponsored motor pools ain’t even in the running. Walkin’ plays a major part in the blues lifestyle. So does fixin’ to die.

6) Teenagers can’t sing the Blues. Adults sing the Blues. In Blues “adulthood” means being old enough to get the electric chair if you shoot a man in Memphis.

7) Blues can take place in New York City but not in Hawaii or any place in Canada. Hard times in Minneapolis or Seattle is probably just clinical depression. Chicago, St. Louis, and Kansas City are still the best places to have the Blues. You cannot have the blues in any place that don’t get rain.

8) A man with male pattern baldness ain’t the blues. A woman with male pattern baldness is. Breaking your leg cause you skiing is not the blues. Breaking your leg ‘cause a alligator be chomping on it is.

9) You can’t have no Blues in a office or a shopping mall. The lighting is wrong. Go outside to the parking lot or sit by the dumpster.

10) Good places for the Blues: a) Highway; b) Jailhouse; c) Empty bed; d) Bottom of a whiskey glass.
Bad places for the Blues: a) Nieman Marcus; b) Gallery openings; c) Ivy League institutions; d) Golf courses

11) No one will believe it’s the Blues if you wear a suit, ‘less you happen to be a old ethnic person, and you slept in it.


12) Do you have the right to sing the Blues?
Yes, if a) You older than dirt; b) You blind; c) You shot a man in Memphis; d) You can’t be satisfied.
No, if a) You have all your teeth; b) You were once blind but now can see; c) The man in Memphis lived; d) You have a 401K or trust fund.

13) Blues is not a matter of color. It’s a matter of bad luck. Tiger Woods cannot sing the blues. Sonny Liston could. Ugly white people also got a leg up on the blues.

14) If you ask for water and your darlin’ give you gasoline, it’s the Blues. Other acceptable Blues beverages are a) Cheapwine; b) Whiskey or bourbon; c) Muddy water; d) Nasty black coffee. The following are NOT Blues beverages: a) Perrier; b) Chardonnay; c) Snapple; d) Slim Fast.

15) If death occurs in a cheap motel or a shotgun shack, it’s a Blues death. Stabbed in the back by a jealous lover is another Blues way to die. So is the electric chair, substance abuse and dying lonely on a broken down cot. You can’t have a Blues death if you die during a tennis match or getting liposuction.

16) Some Blues names for women: a) Sadie; b) Big Mama; c) Bessie; d) Fat River Dumpling

17) Some Blues names for men a) Joe; b) Willie; c) Little Willie; d) Big Willie

18) Persons with names like Michelle, Amber, Debbie, and Heather can’t sing the Blues no matter how many men they shoot in Memphis.

19) Make your own Blues name Starter Kit:
a) Name of physical infirmity (Blind, Cripple, Lame, etc.);
b) First name (see above) plus name of fruit (Lemon, Lime, Kiwi, etc.);
c) Last name of President (Jefferson, Johnson, Fillmore, etc.);
d) For example, Blind Lime Jefferson, Jakeleg Lemon Johnson or Cripple Kiwi Fillmore, etc. (Well, maybe not “Kiwi.”)

20) I don’t care how tragic your life, if you own a computer, you cannot sing the blues.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby tandfman » Sat Jan 07, 2006 8:25 am

Well, the year is only 7 days old and we already have a front-running candidate for a TAFNY.

Thank you, Pego. That was wonderful! (Although looking at it and what was above it, I had to wonder if the entire page somehow wandered over from the Things Not T&F Board.)
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Pego » Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:26 am

tandfman wrote:Well, the year is only 7 days old and we already have a front-running candidate for a TAFNY.

Thank you, Pego. That was wonderful! (Although looking at it and what was above it, I had to wonder if the entire page somehow wandered over from the Things Not T&F Board.)


This has been making rounds through the Internet the past few years. I think it's great.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby tandfman » Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:06 am

Pego wrote:
tandfman wrote:Well, the year is only 7 days old and we already have a front-running candidate for a TAFNY.

Thank you, Pego. That was wonderful! (Although looking at it and what was above it, I had to wonder if the entire page somehow wandered over from the Things Not T&F Board.)


This has been making rounds through the Internet the past few years. I think it's great.

I do too, but if it's not original, I don't know about the TAFNY. :?
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Brutal » Sat Jan 07, 2006 10:45 pm

You can always tell those who know nothing about the subject.

Here's what the blues is about...........


Rock 'N' Roll
It all starts here. According to Muddy Waters, the Blues had a baby, and they named it Rock 'N' Roll. Anatomically impossible of course but with more than a grain of truth. As far back as the late forties DJs were spinning records which had taken the blues and added a jumping backbeat. Artists such as Joe Turner, Louis Jordan, Willie Mae 'Big Mama' Thornton were concocting what we now know as the earliest form of Rhythm and Blues. In Chicago Leonard Chess and his brother were recording artists like Muddy Waters, Howlin Wolf and even the young Chuck Berry. This new electric hybrid (now known as Urban Blues) having migrated to the north of America now filtered back down south by way of local radio stations and when it met Country music somewhere south of the Mason Dixon line, well, the rest is history.

As early as 1947 Roy Brown had recorded what is regarded as the first Rock 'N' Roll tune: "Good Rockin' Tonight". Alan Freed started his Moondog's Rock 'N' Roll Party on a local station in 1952 and by 1954 Bill Haley had made it a world wide phenomenon with "Rock Around The Clock". Loud, raw and under-produced, this was a music that challenged preconceived ideas of morality and authority. Next up was the truck driving boy from Tupelo, Elvis Aaron Presley. In Memphis, Tennessee blues, country, bluegrass and gospel combined in Sam Phillips' tiny Sun Records studio to produce the music that changed the world. Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Roy Orbison and even Johnny Cash all passed through its hallowed doors. As their intensely secular word spread across the states a whole host of young talent, both black and white, suddenly sprang up to appeal to the new audience with a disposable income: teenagers.

From Texas came Buddy Holly and his Crickets; from Minnesota came Eddie Cochran; from New Jersey came Ricky Nelson etc. Along with Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Gene Vincent and thousands of others, the driving beat, over-excited vocal delivery and lyrics which spoke to young people of the urgency and sheer thrill of being young, irrevocably changed the world music market within five short years. "Hound Dog", "Good Golly Miss Molly", "That'll Be The Day": this was music by young people for young people that was easy to play, simple to record and devastatingly effective in alienating your parents. It couldn't last.

By 1960 the fires that had burnt so brightly were largely extinguished, either by corporate mis-management or by fast living. Elvis joined the army and was never quite the same again. Eddie Cochran, Buddy Holly and Ritchie Valens were dead. Little Richard joined the church, Gene Vincent was crippled and Jerry Lee Lewis and Chuck Berry were widely disgraced by their unfortunate dalliances with very young members of the opposite sex. Only the sanitised sounds of crooners like Pat Boone, Cliff Richard and a host of industry puppets designed for mass-consumption (sound familiar?) were left to fill the void. Yet the damage was done and the seeds of the next four decades of popular music had been sown. Awopbopaloobop Awopbamboom!!
top of page
Brutal
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby cullman » Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:35 pm

So...where do Jerry Lieber and Mike Stoller fit into the mix?

cman
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Postby jhc68 » Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:39 pm

I can never quite understand what it is that Brutal wants to hear when he posts this same ol' same ol' about how fast black folks are. What's the point?
jhc68
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby SQUACKEE » Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:20 am

Brutal wrote:You can always tell those who know nothing about the subject.

Here's what the blues is about...........


Rock 'N' Roll
It all starts here. According to Muddy Waters, the Blues had a baby, and they named it Rock 'N' Roll. Anatomically impossible of course but with more than a grain of truth. As far back as the late forties DJs were spinning records which had taken the blues and added a jumping backbeat. Artists such as Joe Turner, Louis Jordan, Willie Mae 'Big Mama' Thornton were concocting what we now know as the earliest form of Rhythm and Blues. In Chicago Leonard Chess and his brother were recording artists like Muddy Waters, Howlin Wolf and even the young Chuck Berry. This new electric hybrid (now known as Urban Blues) having migrated to the north of America now filtered back down south by way of local radio stations and when it met Country music somewhere south of the Mason Dixon line, well, the rest is history.

As early as 1947 Roy Brown had recorded what is regarded as the first Rock 'N' Roll tune: "Good Rockin' Tonight". Alan Freed started his Moondog's Rock 'N' Roll Party on a local station in 1952 and by 1954 Bill Haley had made it a world wide phenomenon with "Rock Around The Clock". Loud, raw and under-produced, this was a music that challenged preconceived ideas of morality and authority. Next up was the truck driving boy from Tupelo, Elvis Aaron Presley. In Memphis, Tennessee blues, country, bluegrass and gospel combined in Sam Phillips' tiny Sun Records studio to produce the music that changed the world. Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Roy Orbison and even Johnny Cash all passed through its hallowed doors. As their intensely secular word spread across the states a whole host of young talent, both black and white, suddenly sprang up to appeal to the new audience with a disposable income: teenagers.

From Texas came Buddy Holly and his Crickets; from Minnesota came Eddie Cochran; from New Jersey came Ricky Nelson etc. Along with Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Gene Vincent and thousands of others, the driving beat, over-excited vocal delivery and lyrics which spoke to young people of the urgency and sheer thrill of being young, irrevocably changed the world music market within five short years. "Hound Dog", "Good Golly Miss Molly", "That'll Be The Day": this was music by young people for young people that was easy to play, simple to record and devastatingly effective in alienating your parents. It couldn't last.

By 1960 the fires that had burnt so brightly were largely extinguished, either by corporate mis-management or by fast living. Elvis joined the army and was never quite the same again. Eddie Cochran, Buddy Holly and Ritchie Valens were dead. Little Richard joined the church, Gene Vincent was crippled and Jerry Lee Lewis and Chuck Berry were widely disgraced by their unfortunate dalliances with very young members of the opposite sex. Only the sanitised sounds of crooners like Pat Boone, Cliff Richard and a host of industry puppets designed for mass-consumption (sound familiar?) were left to fill the void. Yet the damage was done and the seeds of the next four decades of popular music had been sown. Awopbopaloobop Awopbamboom!!
top of page


your right but then in the yearly sixties a musical explosion. a rennasaince. the moment my hears woke up and it wasnt pat boone. it was blues,blues inspired or blues based rock and it was everywhere in the u.k.

john mayall with a young eric clapton playing a les paul guitar through a new amp that would rule the rock world for decades, a marshall. even eric's prevous band, the yardbirds tried to play the blues. but when eric moved in with mayall and listened to old blues records for 6 months he really matured.
fleetwood mac
rolling stones
the jeff beck group
cream
led zepplin
jimi hendrix
even the beatles had a few bluesy songs.

these groups invaded america and can you imagine the impact they had on a 14 year old guitar playing wanna be.

but it wasnt until i went to see jimi hendrix and saw Albert King of the blues open the show that i really got hooked.

this era was eventually to give way to disco, glam rock, punk and rap but all things must pass. when is rap gonna die?
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Pego » Sun Jan 08, 2006 6:06 am

jhc68 wrote:I can never quite understand what it is that Brutal wants to hear when he posts this same ol' same ol' about how fast black folks are. What's the point?


Especially all those lightening fast Ethiopian and Sudanese sprinters we hear so much about.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby Brutal » Sun Jan 08, 2006 7:05 am

jhc68 wrote:I can never quite understand what it is that Brutal wants to hear when he posts this same ol' same ol' about how fast black folks are. What's the point?


I think it's the way others try to deal with it that intriques me. I just accept it and don't question it. I see those obvious physical differences, hell they're staring ya in the face. How obvious can something be?

I hear/read.."it's culture"....hahaha! Culture does not give guys 230 pounds, 4.3 speed. nor does it gives guys 6-3, 4.3 speed. We only see that in the black world. What white /Asian runs liie Reggie Bush, Barry Sanders, Gale Sayers, Eric Dickerson, LaDainian Tomlinson etc etc etc etc? Ok ok there was Hugh McElhenny, now name another.

Speed events in track&field have been dominated by black sprinters. Sure there were a few white sprinters like Borzov,Mennea,Wariner,Wells. But very few.

I simply find it amazing how people try everything to get around...."yep they are built for speed". Especially considering it's so damn obvious.
Brutal
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Brutal » Sun Jan 08, 2006 7:17 am

Pego wrote:
jhc68 wrote:I can never quite understand what it is that Brutal wants to hear when he posts this same ol' same ol' about how fast black folks are. What's the point?


Especially all those lightening fast Ethiopian and Sudanese sprinters we hear so much about.


Why say stupid stuff like that? Tell me why has Nigeria had more sub10.00 sprinters than all of Europe and Asia combined? Talk to me about Jamaica vs China in speed events.
Brutal
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Brutal » Sun Jan 08, 2006 7:29 am

I hear ya bro about the Brits bringing them old blues back to America. Did you know The Rolling Stones got that name from an old Muddy Waters tune? When the Beatles first got off the plane here in America, some reporter asked John Lennon..."now that you're here, what's the first thing you want to do?" John replied "meet Muddy Waters!"

I like a lot of Cali youngsters, would listen to Wolfman Jack when he was broadcasting out of Baja Cali. He was playing something different. It wasn't the usual stuff we were hearing. Yep he was playing R&B and them blues.That was my first taste of Jimmy Reed,John Lee Hooker,Howlin' Wolf,Lightnin' Hopkins,Muddy Waters etc etc. Obviously it make a huge impact on me. Here it is some about 40 years later and I'm still talking about.
Brutal
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Pego » Sun Jan 08, 2006 7:52 am

Brutal wrote:
Pego wrote:
jhc68 wrote:I can never quite understand what it is that Brutal wants to hear when he posts this same ol' same ol' about how fast black folks are. What's the point?


Especially all those lightening fast Ethiopian and Sudanese sprinters we hear so much about.


Why say stupid stuff like that? Tell me why has Nigeria had more sub10.00 sprinters than all of Europe and Asia combined? Talk to me about Jamaica vs China in speed events.


Stupid stuff? I am not talking about the Nigerians, you are. You are the one that applies a moniker from a relatively small population of West Africa and their (partial) descendants to the entire "black race", whatever that means. This has been pointed out to you numerous times, but you and a few others keep repeating this same genetic nonsense and whenever somebody disagrees with such nonsense, you charge a PC label.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby Brutal » Sun Jan 08, 2006 8:19 am

Pego wrote:
Brutal wrote:
Pego wrote:
jhc68 wrote:I can never quite understand what it is that Brutal wants to hear when he posts this same ol' same ol' about how fast black folks are. What's the point?


Especially all those lightening fast Ethiopian and Sudanese sprinters we hear so much about.


Why say stupid stuff like that? Tell me why has Nigeria had more sub10.00 sprinters than all of Europe and Asia combined? Talk to me about Jamaica vs China in speed events.


Stupid stuff? I am not talking about the Nigerians, you are. You are the one that applies a moniker from a relatively small population of West Africa and their (partial) descendants to the entire "black race", whatever that means. This has been pointed out to you numerous times, but you and a few others keep repeating this same genetic nonsense and whenever somebody disagrees with such nonsense, you charge a PC label.


Where do I say "all" blacks are fast? Do you think I'm not aware of how this works? Come on man! The fastest humans on earth are black. The greatest running backs and basketballers are black. What they aren't? I'm not saying "all" blacks are anything. I 'm telling you point blank, we will not find big 230 pounders with 4.3 speed, that aren't black. You disagree?

I'm telling you that yes, different people have different physical make up. Hell just look at the Kenyans and the Samoans.Talk about obvious! People with roots back to West Africa have a different physique. One tailor made to run fast. Do you really think I think "all" blacks are fast? Give me a break!

Tell why small black kids are out running small white/Asian kids? Tell me why a black high schooler can run a 10.08, which is faster than what Borzov ran in 72. Why do we see that sort of thing? Why are there no starting running backs/defensive backs in the NFL that aren't black?

Do you honestly not get it?
Brutal
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Pego » Sun Jan 08, 2006 9:30 am

What I don't "get" is your persistent refusal to acknowledge the fact that it is not "blacks", but West Africans that have this apparent ability of greater speed. There is a world of genetic difference (as far as the narrow span of human differences allow) between the make-up of the eastern Africans, western Africans, southern Africans just as there is between the whites of the Scandinavian and Mediterranean background. Furthermore, the transplanted West Africans to the American continent have to a grea extent mixed with other populations. Your constant reference to "blacks" is what riles me and many others. It is the genetic nonsense of the term, not that I "don't get" certain advantages of certain ethnic groups.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby kuha » Sun Jan 08, 2006 9:49 am

Pego is 100% correct. This foolish racialist thinking--that, for example the word "black" really denotes some clear and specific set of qualities--has been thrown into history's dustbin a long time ago. If you want to talk about very particular genetic populations, fine, I'm all for it, but that's an entirely different thing than any talk that uses the terms "white" or "black" as if they actually mean something.
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby Brutal » Sun Jan 08, 2006 9:57 am

Pego wrote:What I don't "get" is your persistent refusal to acknowledge the fact that it is not "blacks", but West Africans that have this apparent ability of greater speed. There is a world of genetic difference (as far as the narrow span of human differences allow) between the make-up of the eastern Africans, western Africans, southern Africans just as there is between the whites of the Scandinavian and Mediterranean background. Furthermore, the transplanted West Africans to the American continent have to a grea extent mixed with other populations. Your constant reference to "blacks" is what riles me and many others. It is the genetic nonsense of the term, not that I "don't get" certain advantages of certain ethnic groups.


Totally lost aren't ya?

If you are going to contend for the title of "World's Fastest Human", play running back or defensive back in the NFL, you are going to be black. Anyone not aware of that fact isn't paying attention. To play this idiotic..."it's not about being black because there are Etiopia...blah blah blah blah".....that's bullshvt! Why are you ignoring Nigeria? Explain why that country has had more sub10.00 sprinters than Germany,Poland,Russia and China combined. Since they have none.

To talk..."it's not about being black, it's about...blah blah blah"...is stupid. Hell yes it's about being black! No not "all" blacks. Stop with this "mix" crap. Take out the black part of that "mix" and what do we have....HELLO!!!!!!

America has a black population of about 13%. Let's say half of that are males. Now we are talking about 7%. Of that 7% lets say half are between the ages of 19-30. Or about 4%. When 4% of a country the size of America has 100% of anything, there is a good reason for that. There are no.."0"...white sprinters of Olympic caliber here in America. Talking 100 meters. There are no white running backs of note in the NFL. So how can 4% of anything totally dominate?

Stop with this ridiculous..."it's not about being black..blah blah blah blah".....bullshvt!

Do I really need to paste what scientists have discovered about the black physique? Yes there are differences!
Brutal
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Brutal » Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:01 am

kuha wrote:Pego is 100% correct. This foolish racialist thinking--that, for example the word "black" really denotes some clear and specific set of qualities--has been thrown into history's dustbin a long time ago. If you want to talk about very particular genetic populations, fine, I'm all for it, but that's an entirely different thing than any talk that uses the terms "white" or "black" as if they actually mean something.


So you've never been to a track meet? You are trying to tell me there are no differences other than color between black and white? Don't get out much do ya?
Brutal
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby tafnut » Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:08 am

kuha and pego - I've been at this for two years with Brutal, and trust me, NOTHING you ever say will ever make even the smallest impression on his brain. He and I 'buried the hatchet' long ago (in each other's brainpans!). I am convinced he understands what we're saying, but the semantic diffferential is so great a chasm to span - it's no use dashing yourself on the rocks beneath over this stuff.

In this case, it's not a 'black thing', it's a 'Central West African tribal genetic predisposition thing', so let's leave it at that! :D
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby CookyMonzta » Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:14 am

Brutal wrote:
Rob wrote:Again, I don't disagree that the number of black sprinters of a given standard is much greater than the number of white sprinters, and I don't buy all this 'cultural difference' or 'social expectation' or any other PC crap - it's simple genetics and physiology: Blacks are generally better at the sprints. This is the most obvious statement in sport, so I don't know why some people try to encapsulate it into something it isn't, or look for reasons that are politically correct, because it just doesn't work.

But at least you accept that there have been a handful of great white sprinters - obvious exceptions to the norm - who were world beaters during periods when black sprinters were themselves performing well.

I don't think we need to take this any further, execpt to wonder when the next one will come along.


I'm well aware of.....

Charlie Paddock
Jackson Schotz
Mel Patton
Roland Locke
Frank Wykoff
Dave Sime
Bobby Morrow
Bill Woodhouse
Fred Kuller
Ben Vaughn
Gerry Ashworth
Jerry Bright
Doug Hawken
Ralph Wise
Kevin Little
Tom Jones
Marty Kruelee
Rocky Woods
John Roderick
Larry Questad
Tom Scavuzzo
Mike Miller
Mark Lutz
Payton Jordan
Monty Ledbetter
Darel Newman
Dean Smith
Lindy Remigino
John Garrison
Dennis Schultz

All national caliber white sprinters. The problem is that took all of three minutes.

You forgot Marty Glickman, who I believe ran 10.6 in 1936.
CookyMonzta
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Brutal » Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:05 am

tafnut wrote:kuha and pego - I've been at this for two years with Brutal, and trust me, NOTHING you ever say will ever make even the smallest impression on his brain. He and I 'buried the hatchet' long ago (in each other's brainpans!). I am convinced he understands what we're saying, but the semantic diffferential is so great a chasm to span - it's no use dashing yourself on the rocks beneath over this stuff.

In this case, it's not a 'black thing', it's a 'Central West African tribal genetic predisposition thing', so let's leave it at that! :D


How many times do I have to say "not all blacks" is what I want to know? Of course I'm well aware of the Kenyans,Ethiopians etc. That doesn't mean blacks aren't the fastest sprinters on earth. That simply means yep.."not all blacks". If you are going to be one of the elite 100 meter men in the world you are going to be black. That's not obvious? Why go off on this ridiculous..."well you see there are blacks in ..blah blah blah".......???? So what? Does that change the "fact" that the fastest sprinters are black? Why would it?

I hate to get this silly over this but it's gotten to this point.

Can birds fly? Well of course they can.....right? Ever seen a chicken soaring across the sky .....? Now think! Is there not a world of difference between a chicken and an eagle? Are they not both birds? So because a chicken can't.......

See how crazy that is? Just because some blacks aren't great sprinters means nothing. The fastest are! Which is what I've been saying.
Brutal
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby JohnG » Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:21 am

Brutal wrote:Stanley Floyd owned 1980. He was "da man". Yes he wins the Olympics. I can see Wells taking the silver.


Wells and Floyd met in the first meet after Moscow. Wells had already peaked and nearly pulled out of the race because he was so tired post-Moscow. Nevertheless, Wells won 10.19 to 10.21 (0.5 m/s). Surely that's a better indication of what would have happened in Moscow than any subsequent races when Wells was past his best and lacked motivation?
JohnG
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby JohnG » Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:24 am

Vern wrote:Assuming all were fit, I'll go for Sandford - Wells - Leonard.

Lattany was too young, and the only time I ever saw Stanley Floyd, he looked nervous....


Sanford was injured and didn't make it to the FOT. The US team would have been Glance and Lattany with Floyd.
JohnG
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Brutal » Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:33 am

JohnG wrote:
Brutal wrote:Stanley Floyd owned 1980. He was "da man". Yes he wins the Olympics. I can see Wells taking the silver.


Wells and Floyd met in the first meet after Moscow. Wells had already peaked and nearly pulled out of the race because he was so tired post-Moscow. Nevertheless, Wells won 10.19 to 10.21 (0.5 m/s). Surely that's a better indication of what would have happened in Moscow than any subsequent races when Wells was past his best and lacked motivation?


Floyd was the faster sprinter. He also beat Wells in 80. Tell me why did Floyd end up the top ranked 100 man in 80 over the Olympic champ?

Wells only faced two sprinter ranked in the top 10 in that Oly final. 7 Americans were ranked and he faced none of them in that final.
Brutal
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby JohnG » Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:35 am

eldrick wrote:a measure of floyd's greatness, was that he was the first man in history to run two FAT sub-20.10 at low altitude ( & only man to do it in the '70's )

even to this day, seeing 20.0x is still something special


Floyd?!??

Do you mean Borzov? I don't recall any run by him under 20.10 other than the OG final.

I can't find anyone who ran two FAT sub-20.10s at low altitude in the 70s. Clancy Edwards ran 20.03 (1.6) and 20.06 (0.9) and James Mallard ran 20.07 (no reading) and 19.8m(1.6).
JohnG
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby JohnG » Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:50 am

Brutal wrote:Floyd was the faster sprinter. He also beat Wells in 80. Tell me why did Floyd end up the top ranked 100 man in 80 over the Olympic champ?

Wells only faced two sprinter ranked in the top 10 in that Oly final. 7 Americans were ranked and he faced none of them in that final.


Floyd's best performance in 80 was 10.10 (+1.1) (his 10.07 was +2.0). Wells' best was 10.11 (+1.3) in a heat in Moscow. I don't know what the respective weather conditions were (although I recall reports that Moscow was blustery and very cold for much of that week) but based upon that I don't think you can say with any confidence that Floyd was a faster man than Wells in 1980.

Floyd beat Wells when Wells was past his season's peak and no longer motivated.

The TFN ranking lists are not intended as a prediction of who would have won had all the top athletes met at their peak that year. The ranking lists reflect win loss records and quantity of fast times. Thus, in 1980 TFN ranked Paige ahead of Ovett and Coe at 800. ...............
JohnG
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Brutal » Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:04 am

JohnG wrote:
Brutal wrote:Floyd was the faster sprinter. He also beat Wells in 80. Tell me why did Floyd end up the top ranked 100 man in 80 over the Olympic champ?

Wells only faced two sprinter ranked in the top 10 in that Oly final. 7 Americans were ranked and he faced none of them in that final.


Floyd's best performance in 80 was 10.10 (+1.1) (his 10.07 was +2.0). Wells' best was 10.11 (+1.3) in a heat in Moscow. I don't know what the respective weather conditions were (although I recall reports that Moscow was blustery and very cold for much of that week) but based upon that I don't think you can say with any confidence that Floyd was a faster man than Wells in 1980.

Floyd beat Wells when Wells was past his season's peak and no longer motivated.

The TFN ranking lists are not intended as a prediction of who would have won had all the top athletes met at their peak that year. The ranking lists reflect win loss records and quantity of fast times. Thus, in 1980 TFN ranked Paige ahead of Ovett and Coe at 800. ...............


So you talked to Wells about the race? How do you know what his mindset was? You don't! Floyd would have beaten Wells. If you don't want to accept that , that's your choice. He was the better 100 man.
Brutal
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby eldrick » Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:42 pm

JohnG wrote:
eldrick wrote:a measure of floyd's greatness, was that he was the first man in history to run two FAT sub-20.10 at low altitude ( & only man to do it in the '70's )

even to this day, seeing 20.0x is still something special


Floyd?!??

Do you mean Borzov? I don't recall any run by him under 20.10 other than the OG final.

I can't find anyone who ran two FAT sub-20.10s at low altitude in the 70s. Clancy Edwards ran 20.03 (1.6) and 20.06 (0.9) and James Mallard ran 20.07 (no reading) and 19.8m(1.6).


my apologies, i meant clancy

they always looked similar to me & got them mixed up
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby eldrick » Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:51 pm

JohnG wrote:Floyd beat Wells when Wells was past his season's peak and no longer motivated.


& how much motivation do you think floyd had left ?

for all his career he was trying to get 2 things - a wr & an og, & once the latter that was denied him, how much motivation did he have left in '80 ?

i hardly think the motivation he came up with for a few gp meets was anywhere close to that of an og final

besides, we forget one thing - wells won the most crap 100 final ( time-wise ) in the past 46y in an absolutely derisory time of outside 10.2+ & in a dead-heat photo-finish ( those cubans are still complaining silvio was robbed to this day ! )

if they'd run that final with 3 americans, the chances of all of them not breaking 10.20 is less than zero
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby Rob » Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:27 pm

..
Last edited by Rob on Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rob
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Munich

Postby Daisy » Mon Jan 09, 2006 2:34 pm

I'm with Rob here. I'm not sure the Americans would have been as dominant as some suspect. Wells did pretty well against the US athletes in the Golden sprints if i recall. Do you have his head to heads in those races Rob? I'm not sure what years? Possibly 80 and 81?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Rob » Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:05 pm

..
Last edited by Rob on Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
Rob
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Munich

Postby Daisy » Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:15 pm

Thats how I remember it Rob. I suppose the US sprinters were just going through the motions, how else could you explain that half second difference? :wink:
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:31 pm

Rob wrote:And with that logic, I'm sure you'll be ready and willing to explain the Golden Sprints' results from Berlin?

I remember very clearly the Americans coming over to Europe in the late 1970s / early 1980s with fast times in nice warm conditions and then being quite mediocre when running under FAT conditions on European tracks.

Let's look at a few results in the lead-up to Moscow:

Remember the 'great' Steve Williams, who only beat Eugen Ray by 0.02 in Düsseldorf, 1977?

Or how about when Sanford took on Wells at the Gateshead Games in July 1978? Wells 'only' ran 10.29 (to win it). Trouble is, James "10.02" Sanford ran 10.39 (for 3rd equal with Don Quarrie).

Or how about the Spartakiade in Moscow, July 1979? Silvio Leonard (you know, the one Wells beat in the OG 100m final) ran a pretty forgettable 10.30 to win it. Trouble is, he was still ~ 1m clear of one of your "urban legends" (Houston McTear, 10.39). Leonard also beat Harvey Glance in the 1979 Pan Am Games (10.13 to 10.19).

I could go on, but it goes to show that the US sprinters didn't always have it their own way. The Moscow final was not ideal for sprinting - cool and blustery. Allan comes from Edinburgh, where it is usually cool and blustery, so he was used to the conditions. Leonard was a sub-10 100 man, but he too 'only' ran 10.25. That's a dual confirmation, if one was needed (taking the above pre-Moscow results into consideration), that the chances of 3 Americans running outside 10.25 was very real indeed. They did it regularly here in Europe.


the motivation for a few gp races is incomparable to that of an og final

the US guys early in their "major" career had come over & found alien conditions, but your talking 1 - 2y before that og final - they are not stupid & very well knew what to expect once they'd made the team & hoped to go to moscow

if you believe their coach/team didn't factor this into account & plan to take them to acclimatise/train in a location with "cool,blustery" conditions to anticipate this, then you are deluding yourself

the majority of the races you are talking about are ones where the US guys step off a plane, from california/texas/florida conditions, stay overnight in a hotel, then get driven to some cold/windy/alien stadium where they race the local hero - i'd hardly expect any different outcome from the results

an og is the ultimately different competition - the US team wouda turned up probably 2 weeks prior to the start, got used to the conditions/weather, trained in them & performed a helluva lot better than stepping off a plane to race in gateshead

in fact, i wouda thought the US sprint team woud have embarked to moscow as soon as practically possible after their trials - they couda got all their acclimatising at the actual location !

as for wells/leonard - leonard had an altitude sub-10, which if converted probably wasn't better than a mid 10.00 - 10.10 & it wasn't run in '80

on sb's for '80, wells' 10.11 was probably better than whatever silvio had, & therefore for silvio to dead-heat wells suggests to me that wells' underperformed in the final

if you run 10.11 in the heats & only manage a 10.2+ in the final, your underperforming in my book !

this suggests to me wells "choked" in the final ( it was his first og final ), but the others ran so crap, that even with his "choke" he managed to find some myopic judge to give him the dead-heat in his favor

i have little doubt that if he "choked" with that actual crap field, that faced with the additional prospect of 3 fired-up US guys in the final, who for a change, were ready & acclimatised, his choking wouda been terminal

3 US guys - ready, acclimatised & raring to go - not one goes sub- mid 10.2 ???

not in this universe
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby Brutal » Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:39 pm

Daisy wrote:I'm with Rob here. I'm not sure the Americans would have been as dominant as some suspect. Wells did pretty well against the US athletes in the Golden sprints if i recall. Do you have his head to heads in those races Rob? I'm not sure what years? Possibly 80 and 81?


Of the 10 sprinters world ranked in the 100 in 80, 7 were Americans. When you win an Olympics and 7 of the worlds top 10 sprinters weren't eliglble to compete (top 3 anyway) your victory is tainted. I've seen Wells many times as well as Floyd. Floyd wins it in 80!
Brutal
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Rob » Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:55 pm

..
Last edited by Rob on Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rob
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Munich

Postby gh » Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:05 pm

Rob wrote:And the Americans are usually as sore with any mention of his name, and as quick to go looking for excuses, as they are with Borzov.


Rob, your antipathy towards Americans is well known, but please don't take Brutal's thinking as representative of everyone on these shores.

His dissing of Borzoz while at the same time trumpeting Eddy Hart is an embarrassment.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 8 guests