Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete ever


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

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Gabriella » Thu Oct 18, 2012 4:46 am

One excellent throw does not an excellent javelin thrower maketh!

And, to reiterate to another bug bear of mine, that 50m throw would not be a 50m throw today. There have been two changes in javelin specifications since and scientific studies have shown that athletes are disadvantaged with today's model compared to the 'old' and 'old-old' model. Current heptathletes are losing many valuable points to previous greats.

JJK is the best heptathle of all-time, then I hope you see Koch as the best 400m runner of all-time, Felke as the greatest JTer of all time, maybe Hellmann or Gansky as the greatest DTer of all time, maybe Lisovskaya as the greatest SPer of all time, and Kazankina or Qu Yunxia as the greatest 1500m runner of all time, Wang Junxia as the greatest 10ker of all time, Donkova as the greatest hurdler of all time and maybe even Flo Jo as the greatest 100/200 runner of all time...

Me, I find it very hard to gauge who is 'athletic' because many, particularly from previous eras, owe their athleticism to something synthetic.
Gabriella
 
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:59 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:14 am

Gabriella wrote:The other point is that, due to the heptathlon scoring tables, athletes that are sprinter/jumpers have an advantage over throwers, so her gap over her rivals is skewed. Athletes like Turchinskaya, Shouaa and Dobrynska are very disadvantaged, as are all strong throwers.

People see 'athletic' as 'run and jump' (speed), but 'throw' (power) is in there too. The decathlon evens things out a bit better than the heptathlon, and throw in the DT & PV and we would see a change at the top of women's multis.

I'm not doubting JJKs fantastic record, but there are other brilliantly athletic women too. I don't think we'll ever know who is truly the most athletic or best heptathlete when things in the 80's were different to now. It's like comparing 80's throwers to Adams, Heidler et al.

Great post! Obviously I agree with you. 8-)
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Marlow » Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:28 am

Gabriella wrote:One excellent throw does not an excellent javelin thrower maketh!

Just looking at her top Heps, she threw over 50m more than once, so it was not a fluke.

nianchengyu wrote:JJK indeed has huge individual pbs but relatively she cannot combined them well in hep ,her total pbs worth more than 7600p but only 7291p WR with below-par HJ and JV,in her 7215p she did not do well in LJ/7.00m and 800m/2.20s.Furthermore,her super scores only from 1986 to 1988,after that she did more usual scores.

Regression to the mean tells us that if you have outlier performances, the probability of replicating them on a regular basis is diminished. For her to be at the top of her game across the board - when 'her game' is defined as world-class in 5 events, and 'excellent' in the other two - is well nigh impossible. Her sustained excellence in all the events makes her the GOAT of GOATs, in this one man's opinion.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21128
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby dbirds » Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:54 am

For basketball, My picks are Jordan, Lebron and Wilt for sure. The other 2 will be interesting: Havlicek, Olajuwon, Dwight Howard, Iverson, Dr J..several more

3 that they should look at are Steve Nash, Danny Ainge and Nate Robinson..for multi-sport reasons

I hope they dont fall into the trap that most basketball fans/"experts" and just pick leapers like Vince and Blake Griffin and Dominique...sure they are good athletes too but not the elite...in my opinion
dbirds
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:54 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby dbirds » Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:08 am

Why is JJK a lock? If she is, then why isnt a male decathlete a lock?


Why because she dominated the heptathlon, was a great long jumper and played pro basketball. Not to mention, this is an ESPN list and they are biased for North American athletes. Privalova and Drechsler both deserve to be included but I doubt either will.

Gabriella wrote:
The other point is that, due to the heptathlon scoring tables, athletes that are sprinter/jumpers have an advantage over throwers, so her gap over her rivals is skewed. Athletes like Turchinskaya, Shouaa and Dobrynska are very disadvantaged, as are all strong throwers.

People see 'athletic' as 'run and jump' (speed), but 'throw' (power) is in there too. The decathlon evens things out a bit better than the heptathlon, and throw in the DT & PV and we would see a change at the top of women's multis.

I'm not doubting JJKs fantastic record, but there are other brilliantly athletic women too. I don't think we'll ever know who is truly the most athletic or best heptathlete when things in the 80's were different to now. It's like comparing 80's throwers to Adams, Heidler et al.
Great post! Obviously I agree with you.


I 100% agree with post as well!
dbirds
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:54 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby 18.99s » Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:05 pm

Gabriella wrote:And, to reiterate to another bug bear of mine, that 50m throw would not be a 50m throw today. There have been two changes in javelin specifications since and scientific studies have shown that athletes are disadvantaged with today's model compared to the 'old' and 'old-old' model. Current heptathletes are losing many valuable points to previous greats.

They didn't adjust the scoring tables to account for the javelin redesign?
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby 18.99s » Fri Oct 19, 2012 3:10 am

cullman wrote:Re: dancers as athletes. Google "Nicholas Brothers In Stormy Weather" if you want to see a great athletic tap performance. :D


Thanks for alerting me to that incredible performance and the movie. I see it also has a number of other legends like Lena Horne, Bojangles (Bill Robinson), Fats Waller, and Cab Calloway. I have to buy or rent it!
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Blues » Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:55 am

18.99s wrote:
Gabriella wrote:And, to reiterate to another bug bear of mine, that 50m throw would not be a 50m throw today. There have been two changes in javelin specifications since and scientific studies have shown that athletes are disadvantaged with today's model compared to the 'old' and 'old-old' model. Current heptathletes are losing many valuable points to previous greats.

They didn't adjust the scoring tables to account for the javelin redesign?


One might assume that they'd somehow adjust the scoring tables, but based on quick examination, Olympic heptathlon javelin distances in Seoul in 1988 seem to have generated the same point scores as identical distances in London, 2012, despite the women's javelin modification of 1999.

Interestingly though, in the 2012 London competition, 9 of the competitors had significantly longer throws than the best throw in Seoul despite using the newer type javelin, although I'm not sure if the temperature, humidity, and wind in London may have been more conducive to longer throws.
Blues
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby cullman » Fri Oct 19, 2012 10:41 am

18.99s wrote:
cullman wrote:Re: dancers as athletes. Google "Nicholas Brothers In Stormy Weather" if you want to see a great athletic tap performance. :D


Thanks for alerting me to that incredible performance and the movie. I see it also has a number of other legends like Lena Horne, Bojangles (Bill Robinson), Fats Waller, and Cab Calloway. I have to buy or rent it!

You're welcome. Bill Bojangles Robinson apparently held a record at one time for sprinting backwards.
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Marlow » Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:06 am

cullman wrote:Bill Bojangles Robinson apparently held a record at one time for sprinting backwards.

The intrawebs really do have everything!

http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/ba ... nning.html
Marlow
 
Posts: 21128
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby j-a-m » Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:07 pm

cullman wrote:Bill Bojangles Robinson apparently held a record at one time for sprinting backwards.

At least that event makes more sense than racewalking. Seriously.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby j-a-m » Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:09 pm

Marlow wrote:http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/backwards-running.html

In addition to holding world records from 400m to the mile, Thomas Dold is also quite good in running upstairs, including multiple wins at the Empire State Building tower run.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Oct 19, 2012 5:05 pm

nianchengyu wrote:
Marlow wrote:
Gabriella wrote:But she didnt excel in the JT and 800m at all;

I beg to differ. Her 50m JT in 1986 was indeed 'excellent', as was her 2:08 800. The rest of her marks then were world-class. She was (is) in a completely different class than her 'peers'. And her peers were among the best athletes on the planet.

JJK indeed has huge individual pbs but relatively she cannot combined them well in hep ,her total pbs worth more than 7600p but only 7291p WR with below-par HJ and JV,in her 7215p she did not do well in LJ/7.00m and 800m/2.20s.Furthermore,her super scores only from 1986 to 1988,after that she did more usual scores.


Usually the athletes PRs etc come spread out over time with different event getting better and worse. However, with JJK the two Hepts she did when she set that so-far untouchable record would, when combined, give her over 7400 points if I recall my calculations correctly. Those two meets were not that far apart in time.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby fortyacresandamule » Fri Oct 19, 2012 5:55 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
fortyacresandamule wrote:Do golfers qualify as athletes? For if they do, we might as well called ball room dancers athletes also.

The fact that women can't compete with men tells me that there is some athleticism involved in golf, though John Daley proved that you don't have to be in shape. Also, I can't think of another sport that places as a high a premium on hand-eye coordination as golf does.



I think a table tennis player and in cricket ( top class batsmen) require much more hand coordination than golfers.
fortyacresandamule
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:24 pm

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:07 pm

fortyacresandamule wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
fortyacresandamule wrote:Do golfers qualify as athletes? For if they do, we might as well called ball room dancers athletes also.

The fact that women can't compete with men tells me that there is some athleticism involved in golf, though John Daley proved that you don't have to be in shape. Also, I can't think of another sport that places as a high a premium on hand-eye coordination as golf does.



I think a table tennis player and in cricket ( top class batsmen) require much more hand coordination than golfers.

Those sports put a good deal of emphasis on strategy and quickness in addition to hand-eye coordination. Hitting major league baseball pitching requires a combination of hand-eye coordination, strategy (guessing the pitch), power and quickness. In golf, quickness is a non-factor, strategy is a very small factor (most golfers approach all the holes the same way) and power is a non-factor (most adult males have enough power). The only talent golf requires in abundance is hand-eye coordination.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Lord_Zanus » Sun Oct 21, 2012 7:12 am

In general its true that the simplest test of athletic ability is the ability to adapt and fit in no matter the sport or task. So it would probably surprise you to know just how goofy and uncoordinated some of the best players in a specific sport are when they're placed outside of it. Those guys who can run an amazing route, but shoot a basketball like a 12 year old girl. The hurdler who glides through the race but catches a baseball as if its made of radioactive sewage. I've played with, grew up with or simply seen a lot of former professional athletes and I would have to say, that you would surprised. Im surprised Randy Moss didnt get a mention?

Anyhow, i'll use myself as an example. At my best I had a 46" vertical, ran a NFL timed 4.17 in the 40, triple jumped 46' the 1st time trying it. Ran a 4:40something in the mile. Been able to flip rather easily since the 3rd grade, no Ryan Lochte but i've been able to competently swim since 5th grade. Never met a db who could cover me, and never met a reciever who I couldnt cover. Volleyball was pretty easy, but I never enjoyed it. Uncle had a tennis fetish for a while and I realized then that if I could afford the lessons I might be pretty decent at it. For some reason I didnt play soccer much if ever. I hate baseball to this day so whatever I could have done there is pointless to me lol. Point being there was never a time where I felt out of place or that I couldnt develop by simply being more involved in the sport/activity.

But guess what, one of my friends growing up was probably equal if not a better athlete than me. In high school he was 6'4", ran 13.8 in the 110's, if not for an awful coach would have jumped well over 7' in the hj(6'10 five times). Was a 23' long jumper(same bad coach), could have been the most effective reciever if not for the jump coach also being the wide recievers coach as well...He never let either of us play, so my friend quit. I believe he also played baseball as well as gymnastics....

So im interested to see how this test will be done with people who no longer play or exist...
Lord_Zanus
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 11:59 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Marlow » Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:09 am

Lord_Zanus wrote:ran a NFL timed 4.17 in the 40

Attestation required! :wink:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21128
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:40 am

Lord_Zanus wrote:Anyhow, i'll use myself as an example. At my best I had a 46" vertical, ran a NFL timed 4.17 in the 40

Come on man! :lol:
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby repmujhgih » Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:58 am

Lord Zanus must be Deion "Prime Time" Sanders according to this list...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_Fastest_time_in_40_yd_in_NFL
repmujhgih
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:27 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Marlow » Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:34 am

repmujhgih wrote:Lord Zanus must be Deion "Prime Time" Sanders according to this list...
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_Fastest_time_in_40_yd_in_NFL

Cool list. If I had to bet, the fastest people to ever run 40y would be

Darrell Green
Herb Washington
Bo Jackson
Deion Sanders
Napolean Kaufman
Marlow
 
Posts: 21128
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby user4 » Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:35 am

Thanks Lord Zanus. your honesty has inspired me so I will also mention that as a youth I ran a 4.3 40 and never met a NCAA D1or NFL dB that I could not blow by while I was wearing steel toe shoes after a hard day on the work site. The reason I say this is that the real amazing thing was that I could never get more than a few shots below the 76 par at the Augusta National course nor could I hit better than .360 off of MLB pitchers, and things could get uglier for me when facing a Nolan Ryan and Randy Johnson. This is kind of shocking I know, but that is just how freaky nature can be.
user4
 
Posts: 1438
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Lord_Zanus » Sun Oct 21, 2012 3:04 pm

I would assume that the skepticism is based on the idea that you guys put any stock into "nfl timed" 40's in the first place. I've coached track for over a decade and have always thought 40's were b.s. Which is why I said "NFL 40"....So if anyone thinks I was bragging or boasting, understand that I know 4.17 isnt "real". That day I ran five 40's and the average was 4.39....None of which, even if they were 4.6 would have been legit in my opinion unless they were FAT. Keep this in mind when you assume i'm just throwing out numbers or just flat out lying. The vertical for example is as real as my chest hair. Not everyone who resembles an athlete is playing professional sports. Or even wants to for that matter.
Lord_Zanus
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 11:59 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Marlow » Sun Oct 21, 2012 3:21 pm

Lord_Zanus wrote:I've . . . always thought 40's were b.s.

Some are; some aren't. :wink:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21128
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 21, 2012 3:29 pm

Marlow wrote:
repmujhgih wrote:Lord Zanus must be Deion "Prime Time" Sanders according to this list...
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_Fastest_time_in_40_yd_in_NFL

Cool list. If I had to bet, the fastest people to ever run 40y would be

Darrell Green
Herb Washington
Bo Jackson
Deion Sanders
Napolean Kaufman

I doubt very seriously that Bo Jackson is in the top ten since his 100 PR was only 10.44, and I'm pretty sure that Trindon Holliday, Jacoby Ford and Jeff Demps are on it.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Marlow » Sun Oct 21, 2012 3:38 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:I doubt very seriously that Bo Jackson is in the top ten since his 100 PR was only 10.44

??!!
40y = 36m, a very different distance than the 100m. Ask Herb or Houston or any other jet-starter would couldn't reach or sustain a high top-end speed. We are JUST talking about great 'accelerators' in the 40. I'm pretty sure that Barry Sanders couldn't run a great 100, but did anyone have a better 1st and 2nd gear?
Last edited by Marlow on Sun Oct 21, 2012 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21128
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 21, 2012 3:40 pm

Marlow wrote:
Lord_Zanus wrote:I've . . . always thought 40's were b.s.

Some are; some aren't. :wink:

The 40's run at the NFL combine using the current SAT timing system are a pretty good measuring stick for comparing runners from one year to another. I don't much stock in times run at any other place. The thing to remember is that Chris Johnson ran his 4.24 at the same place, using the same timing system, on the same running surface and the same clock operator as was used when Jacoby Ford ran his 4.28 and when Trindon Holliday ran his 4.34.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC0R1Paj0tA
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 21, 2012 3:52 pm

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:I doubt very seriously that Bo Jackson is in the top ten since his 100 PR was only 10.44

??!!
40y = 36m, a very different distance than the 100m. Ask Herb or Houston or any other jet-starter would couldn't reach or sustain a high top-end speed. We are JUST talking about great 'accelerators' in the 40.

I'm fully aware of the fact many explosive sprinters who excel indoors, lack the top end to be competitive outdoors and vice versa. However his 55m PR is only 6.18 according to the Auburn media guide. You do the math and keep in mind that at the NFL combine you don't have starting blocks and you run on field turf instead of Mondo.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Marlow » Sun Oct 21, 2012 3:57 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:his 55m PR is only 6.18 - You do the math and keep in mind that at the NFL combine you don't have starting blocks and you run on field turf instead of Mondo.

The math tells me that he was an SEC football player who dabbled in the 60 on pure athletic ability. Not unlike Deion Sanders and Herschel Walker and myriad others.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21128
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 21, 2012 4:23 pm

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:his 55m PR is only 6.18 - You do the math and keep in mind that at the NFL combine you don't have starting blocks and you run on field turf instead of Mondo.

The math tells me that he was an SEC football player who dabbled in the 60 on pure athletic ability. Not unlike Deion Sanders and Herschel Walker and myriad others.

Also not unlike John Capel (6.48 @60), Leonard Scott (6.46 @60), Jeff Demps (6.52 @60), Trindon Holliday (6.54 @60)and Jacoby Ford (6.51 @60), all football players who managed to run very fast indoor times two months after football season and 10.0x in the outdoor season while dabbling in track like Jackson.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby user4 » Sun Oct 21, 2012 4:47 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:his 55m PR is only 6.18 - You do the math and keep in mind that at the NFL combine you don't have starting blocks and you run on field turf instead of Mondo.

The math tells me that he was an SEC football player who dabbled in the 60 on pure athletic ability. Not unlike Deion Sanders and Herschel Walker and myriad others.

Also not unlike John Capel (6.48 @60), Leonard Scott (6.46 @60), Jeff Demps (6.52 @60), Trindon Holliday (6.54 @60)and Jacoby Ford (6.51 @60), all football players who managed to run very fast indoor times two months after football season and 10.0x in the outdoor season while dabbling in track like Jackson.


Very well said, but I would put Walker in the later category: fully an elite sprinter. Im still amazed that no NFL team could find a place for Scott.
user4
 
Posts: 1438
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Marlow » Sun Oct 21, 2012 5:01 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Also not unlike John Capel (6.48 @60), Leonard Scott (6.46 @60), Jeff Demps (6.52 @60), Trindon Holliday (6.54 @60)and Jacoby Ford (6.51 @60), all football players who managed to run very fast indoor times two months after football season and 10.0x in the outdoor season while dabbling in track like Jackson.

All those you cite took track very seriously and trained for it. Deion Sanders could have smoked all of them, but he and Bo and Herschel just ran track as an after-thought to football.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21128
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 21, 2012 6:03 pm

Marlow wrote:Deion Sanders could have smoked all of them.

You don't know that. There's a big difference between 10.26 (Deion's PR) and sub-10, so it's just idle specualtion and conjecture to say that Deion would have run faster than the guys I listed who also chose football over track when they left college, just like Deion and Bo did, although Scott and Capel were forced to return to track after they couldn't cut it in pro football. What I will concede is that Bo and Deion were splitting their time three ways (football, baseball and track) and not just two ways (football and track). If Deion had run 10.0x while in college, I would concede sub-10 ability, but I won't concede it based on a 10.26 PR.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Lord_Zanus » Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:19 am

Marlow wrote:
Lord_Zanus wrote:I've . . . always thought 40's were b.s.

Some are; some aren't. :wink:


In the sense that they arent FAT, they all are. And this isnt even saying that the runner needs to reqct to a gun. It could be something as simple as breaking a beam which starts the clcok and breaking another to stop it.
Lord_Zanus
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 11:59 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Lord_Zanus » Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:41 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:I doubt very seriously that Bo Jackson is in the top ten since his 100 PR was only 10.44

??!!
40y = 36m, a very different distance than the 100m. Ask Herb or Houston or any other jet-starter would couldn't reach or sustain a high top-end speed. We are JUST talking about great 'accelerators' in the 40.

I'm fully aware of the fact many explosive sprinters who excel indoors, lack the top end to be competitive outdoors and vice versa. However his 55m PR is only 6.18 according to the Auburn media guide. You do the math and keep in mind that at the NFL combine you don't have starting blocks and you run on field turf instead of Mondo.


I coached a guy who had prs of 6.1 & 6.58 and during a workout that same year I secretly timed him in the 40 enroute to a 50 or 60. During the actual rep I hand timed the run at 4.2x. But I then went home and clocked it on the computer using dartfish and got 4.54. In terms of the 100m he's faster than Chris Johnson and Bo Jackson but slower than Trindon Holiday. So in one sense you have a point in that he may not be in the top ten, but you would have to also consider the inconsistancy in timing from athlete to athlete. Especially when it comes to a distance so shirt.
Lord_Zanus
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 11:59 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 22, 2012 5:58 am

Lord_Zanus wrote:
Marlow wrote:
Lord_Zanus wrote:I've . . . always thought 40's were b.s.

Some are; some aren't. :wink:


In the sense that they arent FAT, they all are. And this isnt even saying that the runner needs to reqct to a gun. It could be something as simple as breaking a beam which starts the clcok and breaking another to stop it.

At the NFL Combine, they only stop the clock electronically, but they also use the same starter (Mark Gorscak) year after year to start the clock. Anyone who's watch him knows that he's pretty consistent when it comes to disallowing rolling starts and all the other shenigans that players might try to get away with.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 22, 2012 7:45 am

jazzcyclist wrote:At the NFL Combine, they only stop the clock electronically, but they also use the same starter (Mark Gorscak) year after year to start the clock. Anyone who's watch him knows that he's pretty consistent when it comes to disallowing rolling starts and all the other shenigans that players might try to get away with.

Really?! I thought the clock starts automatically when their hand leaves the electronic starting pad. If not, I don't care HOW good he is; he is human and therefore subject to variances.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21128
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby gh » Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:14 pm

j-a-m wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Also, I can't think of another sport that places as a high a premium on hand-eye coordination as golf does.

Including hand-eye coordination as one of the many criteria to determine the best athlete is fine with me. What we should also include then is auditory reaction time, which is something sprinters are particularly good at.


Are sprinters really "particularly good" at reaction time? Good sprinters have lots of fast-twitch fibers, but that's not what transmits nerve impulses, and I've never heard there was any link between the two.

Indeed, there was a study in the early '70s by the Soviets, who ran reaction-time tests on all their "sportsmen," as they liked to call them. Of all the sports, guess which one's performers as a group tested best? Would you believe.... wait for it.... chess players! Seriously.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:23 pm

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:At the NFL Combine, they only stop the clock electronically, but they also use the same starter (Mark Gorscak) year after year to start the clock. Anyone who's watch him knows that he's pretty consistent when it comes to disallowing rolling starts and all the other shenigans that players might try to get away with.

Really?! I thought the clock starts automatically when their hand leaves the electronic starting pad. If not, I don't care HOW good he is; he is human and therefore subject to variances.

Watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC0R1Paj0tA
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Dave » Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:39 pm

bambam wrote:
fortyacresandamule wrote:Do golfers qualify as athletes? For if they do, we might as well called ball room dancers athletes also.


As a former pro golfer I will say that I think ball room dancers actually have to have a much greater degree of athletic skill than golfers. We just had to become automatons. Dancers are pretty athletic in many cases. There was a book in the 70s called The Ultimate Athlete and the author concluded he did not know who the ultimate athlete was, but he bet he/she was a dancer.


In the mid to late 60's Sports Illustrated had an American male ballet dancer on the cover. They proclaimed him to be the best athelete in the world. Not sure if anyone can provide a point to that.
Dave
 
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:10 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC0R1Paj0tA

OK, sonuvagun, I did not know that. And it makes no sense, but they can do as they wish. His human error (I don't care how good he is) induces several hundredths of a second error into every time. It really IS time (pun!) for the NFL to go to track FAT.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21128
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 12 guests