Current sprinters on a cinder track?


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

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby batonless relay » Thu May 09, 2013 11:56 am

Marlow wrote:??!!
You act like YOU are citing facts, which of course, you are not. Yours is also pure speculation.
From that video there is NO way you can tell the condition of Lane 1. It was undoubted 'well-prepared', but as Lane 1, it was also more heavily torn up.

I am the first to admit that we geezers look at the past with rose-colored classes and think (wish) that our heroes could 'lace 'em up' with the best today. For the most part, we are wrong. But there are exceptions and The Bullet is definitely one of them. He was a Beast of the highest magnitude.

Unlike you, Marlow, I began my point with the initials for the words "in my opinion"
batonless relay wrote:Bolt would have smoked Hayes, imo.


Put down your walker! The crazy part is that you and the geezer squad actually think that you have presented facts. You haven't - which you admit (thank heavens). You can't say for certain how torn up lane 1 and i bet it's similar to the people who initially said Bolt would have run 9.50 in Beijing if he didn't stop to do the Majorette salute. It's an old wives tale, by non-old wives (and probably some old wives, too). Don't doubt Hayes was a beast, and I do think he could have been Olympic Champion in say, 1992, but I do not think that if the same athlete had grown up 24 years later that he would have crushed Christie, even though I think Hayes was a HIGH-9.8 guy. He might have won, but it wasn't going to be a '08/'09-Bolt performance. He wasn't going to run 9.5, 9.6 and probably not 9.7 - IN MY OPINION. Even watching Hayes...technically he is good. Yes, he has some serious upper torso torque, but he's really good with what's going on below the waste (Bolt is another nightmare so we can leave that for another day). I think he's at best a 9.83 guy...maybe he beats Donovan in '96, but maybe he don't.

One other thing that bothers me about this argument is when people cite "modern coaching". Hell, the more coaches learn the more they seem to go back to what Lydiard, Winter and Bowerman were saying 400 years ago. Like the surface, and the nutrition (which was better back then as food was not all processed), and the weights it's just one other thing that is way overblown. Hayes 9.83 and I'm being generous. :wink:
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby user4 » Thu May 09, 2013 12:47 pm

batonless relay wrote:
user4 wrote:
batonless relay wrote:
user4 wrote:comports with theory and empirical observations over an entire decade from the mid60s to the mid70s. :wink:

observations made by people who never stopped to think what ELSE could have been changing. But more importantly a user4 guy thinks, that only Hayes gets faster and all the other athletes from 1964 just stay the same. :wink:


I never said that others dont get faster, I think both Figuerola and Jerome are standouts and would be competitive today. Heck Figuerola managed to get a medal in 1968 on a synthetic track !

Most people recognize that the synthetic track is far superior, This agrees with theory and with empirical observations from runners.

RUNNING 10.23! Not, 9.9x! You Geezers are "flat earthers"; those "observations" are what you would LIKE to think, but NOT what it is. Theory? Theory? In practice, I don't think it was .2s or more faster.



Can you support your theory that running on cinder is equal to running on a synthetic surface with anything other than huffing and puffing? Can you provide some reason to believe contrary to all accounts that the loss mechanisms are equivalent ? Do you know what the standards are for todays synthetic surfaces ? do you know how a cinder track would compare ?

Can you give us one athlete from the transition era that said there was no difference between them ?

Are you serious or are you just being provocative ?

Figuerola got a silver medal in the 4X100. Im going to guess that Figuerola was at his best in 1964 and not nearly as good in 1968 at 30 years of age. I say so based on my own conversion of his 10.23A syn. to about a 10.5 nonA cinder. His countryman Silvio Leonard 10 years later gave us the first non-mexico city 9.9 and another sliver at 100m, he was about 5'9 I think.
user4
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby batonless relay » Thu May 09, 2013 1:27 pm

user4 wrote:1. Can you support your theory that running on cinder is equal to running on a synthetic surface with anything other than huffing and puffing?
2. Can you provide some reason to believe contrary to all accounts that the loss mechanisms are equivalent ?
3. Do you know what the standards are for todays synthetic surfaces ?
4. do you know how a cinder track would compare ?
5. Can you give us one athlete from the transition era that said there was no difference between them ?
6. Are you serious or are you just being provocative ?

1. You're oversimplifying what I'm saying? I'm not saying that it's equal in all cases, but it's not a guaranteed .2-.3 improvement. I've seen where athletes have raced on well manicured GRASS and the times were nearly exact with modern surfaces (Darrell Green on grass)
2. I have every reason to believe otherwise. Yes times have improved, but not generally. The times being run in the 60's by countries that are not typical sprint powers have not improved.
3. knowing what the standards are for todays is a trickbag. What matters is how fast the athletes run, or can run, not the coefficient of slip numbers created by the marketing departments of BASF and Mondo.
4. You're kidding right? That's what we're debating. I'm calling BS on you geezers and you're saying you have emmpirical evidence that I believe is trumped up.
5. Now you're being patronizing. I'm sure we can find someone who ran faster on sand then they did Mondo. It's not like everyone SB's and PB's at global champs. The point is for you to prove that Hayes could beat Bolt or anyone who has run faster than 10.06. You can't. This sport, thankfully, doesn't have "degrees of difficulty" like debutante sports like diving or gymnastics.
6. Patronizing again. But let's go through it. PROVE that nutrition is better today when most doctors think supplements that not all athletes who are world beaters use gives you nothing more than expensive urine. PROVE that modern techniques would have made Hayes faster. PROVE that lane 1, in Tokyo in 1964, after x amount of races was a disadvantage. Prove that Hayes at 5'11" 190 lbs would have been at a disadvantage in strength to athletes today who are -except for Powell and Bolt and few others - lighter than Hayes and probably not as strong. You can't prove any of that, but you've asked those questions of me.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby user4 » Thu May 09, 2013 2:13 pm

the question of what Hayes would run today is too hard for me . While I dont think he would beat bolt i do not know all the details of what the athletes are taking in this sport, nutrition wise or otherwise so I dont want to get into that except to say that I think Hayes would be competitive in the sport today all other things being equal. Competitive means that he makes it to the finals of OG and WC.

1) If Darrel green could run 100m on grass in the same time that he could run 100m on a modern surface I will eat the grass. That sounds preposterous.

2) If you take a hard object (say a steel ball) and drop it (from some height) on today's synthetic surface and record its rebound height, you will measure as certain % loss. Drop the same ball on various dirt/cinder/clay/grass surfaces and you will see a difference in the loss relative to the synthetic surface. That difference is a rough measure of how much the runner loses in sprinting on the two surfaces. It is not the best measure it is just a measure. This agrees with the recollections of countless sprinters that ran on the two surfaces. I trust the athletes to tell me and they have weighed in time and time again.

3) For instance beach sand is probably slower than a cinder track.

4) The empirical evidence is the recollections of countless athletes that ran on the two types of surfaces in the 1960s/early 70s. Take up your case with them.

5) I never said Hayes could beat bolt but your inability to observe the most basic fact that a 2010 synthetic track is much faster than a 1960 dirt track makes me wonder... oh well.

6) modern techniques would have made Hayes or any sprinter from the past a better sprinter. All fields advance and the science of sport performance is no different.
user4
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby gh » Thu May 09, 2013 4:48 pm

a private e-mail from a lurker

<<Why do people get on these message boards and get into mindless rants with each other like user4 and batonlessrelay over Hayes and Bolt? I just don't see it. I like to argue the merits of the two, and I agree Bolt is now the GOAT, as much as I loved Hayes as a sprinter, but stuff like this is ridiculous. I see why you ban people.>>

a word to the wise.....
gh
 
Posts: 46323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby batonless relay » Thu May 09, 2013 5:30 pm

gh, for the record: if you get a private email attacking posters on this board or even encouraging you to ban people, then the decent thing for you to have done would be to keep it private - between you and the anonymous emailer who LOVES to argue the merits of Hayes and Bolt. (Only "the anonymous emailers" cowardly arguments are not mindless because what? Because he argues over scotch? Because they have your email address? Because they know you?) By the emailers own "view" there would be no reason to argue about anything, ever, in the first place. You should be telling a gutless turd like that to join in and make a better, more compelling argument, not using their "rant" to threaten posters who are here. What has that coward contributed? I'm amazed that you can't see that?

You should have kept it private. What you did is incredibly classless, fwiw; but for some strange reason -and it's not the first time that you've done something like this- you seem to be proud of what you've done.

Think about this: if everyone was like your dedicated lurker associate, then you would have no reason to act like [the ... ] you are acting like right now because there would be no forum - which I admit would make your life a whole lot easier, but you might have one less person who you, as the editor of TFN, would get a chance to connect to. You should apologize for what you did. I don't think I've ever seen you apologize, and I'm not holding my breath that you will right now; mostly because I doubt you have it in you. But, you were wrong. It's a shame you can't see that.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby Marlow » Thu May 09, 2013 6:22 pm

batonless relay wrote: . . . stuff . . .

Wow, first day back from a banning and off you go again?!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby lonewolf » Thu May 09, 2013 7:20 pm

Let's hear it for the lurker. Beat me to it.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby bambam » Fri May 10, 2013 12:25 am

I'm that gutless turd, batonless relay. I used to act like this sometimes, too - but then I graduated from the 3rd grade.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby batonless relay » Fri May 10, 2013 4:05 am

bambam wrote:I'm that gutless turd, batonless relay. I used to act like this sometimes, too - but then I graduated from the 3rd grade.

by your response, I'm not that sure, but whatever. Anyway, the next time you feel that way, you might want to take a stroll over to the myth of the sub-2 marathon thread. It's instructional because you can find things like...well, things like this:

TN1965 wrote:
bambam wrote:
TN1965 wrote:So in other words, no one knows if they are good on track. Then how can anyone state as a fact that the talent is shifting from track to road? That's just speculation.

Isn't that the purpose of this board???


I'd rather see speculation stated as such, rather than presented as undisputable fact. But maybe that's just me.


Pot, meet Kettle
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby Marlow » Fri May 10, 2013 4:38 am

batonless relay wrote:cowardly arguments . . . gutless turd l . . . coward . . . incredibly classless, . . . you seem to be proud of what you've done. . . . You should apologize for what you did. . . . you were wrong. It's a shame you can't see that.


batonless relay wrote:Pot, meet Kettle





One can only assume gh has not read this yet.
Your inability to keep a civil tongue will never be appreciated here. Just sayin' . . .
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby batonless relay » Fri May 10, 2013 5:10 am

Marlow wrote:
batonless relay wrote:cowardly arguments . . . gutless turd l . . . coward . . . incredibly classless, . . . you seem to be proud of what you've done. . . . You should apologize for what you did. . . . you were wrong. It's a shame you can't see that.


batonless relay wrote:Pot, meet Kettle




One can only assume gh has not read this yet.
Your inability to keep a civil tongue will never be appreciated here. Just sayin' . . .


Neither will your self-appointed role as hall monitor, or whatever you think you're trying to do. I've addressed my piece to "gh" and "bambam"...maybe you should just leave this alone and let the thread get back on track or die. Your editorials are neither needed or wanted. Any follow-up posts by you not addressing the thread that YOU started will be an example of you CONTINUING to be "incivil" - not me. So, impress us, for once, and stay on topic.

matter of fact, I'll start it for you.

Assuming that every cinder track will be inferior to every synthetic track is like assuming that every wind-illegal time should be superior to every wind-legal time. But, one look at the women's all time list shows that a majority of the top-15 men and women of all time have superior legal times to their illegal times. Their are no constants, no guarantees - and you, or no one else can say definitively that lane 1 in Tokyo in 1964 put him at a disadvantage.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby user4 » Fri May 10, 2013 5:21 am

gh wrote:a private e-mail from a lurker

<<Why do people get on these message boards and get into mindless rants with each other like user4 and batonlessrelay over Hayes and Bolt? I just don't see it. I like to argue the merits of the two, and I agree Bolt is now the GOAT, as much as I loved Hayes as a sprinter, but stuff like this is ridiculous. I see why you ban people.>>

a word to the wise.....


I honestly didnt think that my posts were mindless or even rants. The guy was calling Marlow and I geezers ... and the truth hurt :)
user4
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby Marlow » Fri May 10, 2013 5:48 am

user4 wrote:The guy was calling Marlow and I geezers ... and the truth hurt :)

Calling me a geezer is an insult to real old people. I aspire to geezerdom. But . . . if seeing Bob Hayes as anything other than one of the greatest heroes of T&F history is geezerly then I proudly accept the appellation! I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but through my 20 years in the Navy, I played on many different sports teams, from football, to soccer, to softball, volleyball (and wallyball!), tennis, etc., and I was ALWAYS number 22!!! :D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby user4 » Fri May 10, 2013 5:51 am

Marlow wrote:
user4 wrote:The guy was calling Marlow and I geezers ... and the truth hurt :)

Calling me a geezer is an insult to real old people. I aspire to geezerdom. But . . . if seeing Bob Hayes as anything other than one of the greatest heroes of T&F history is geezerly then I proudly accept the appellation! I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but through my 20 years in the Navy, I played on many different sports teams, from football, to soccer, to softball, volleyball (and wallyball!), tennis, etc., and I was ALWAYS number 22!!! :D


You are a rare individual on many levels my friend with a self-effacing humor that serves as a balm. I can only say that an old HS friend told me "you look great for your age", I said, thanks I dont feel a day over 80.
user4
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby pavlik » Sun May 19, 2013 1:50 am

Hey guys..
I am a person who competed on both types of track- synthetic and cinder at tthe same time when I was 15. In 100m I ran 11.7ht on synthetic and 11.8ht on cinder. In 60m I ran 7.61 on synthetric and 7.54 on cinder!! In long jump my best on synthetic was 6.38m and on cinder 6.59m!!! As you can see the diferences are so small and sonmetimes in a favour of cinder. Of course at that time I trained on cinder so I was used to it.
pavlik
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 1:37 am

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby lonewolf » Sun May 19, 2013 8:37 am

Anecdotal example. Small sample. Small difference. Different races. Different conditions.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby batonless relay » Mon May 20, 2013 7:10 am

lonewolf wrote:Anecdotal example. Small sample. Small difference. Different races. Different conditions.

Yeah, but it still reminded me a lot of example below. The only difference is that he never used the word convinced.
lonewolf wrote:Personal example: Circa 1950, I was running 9.7y on cinders. When I entered Master's competition in 1971-72, I ran 10.2y on cinders and 11.0m on synthetic.
Officially hand timed and from memory..Maybe not scientific but convinced me synthetic is faster.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby lonewolf » Mon May 20, 2013 12:22 pm

Yeah..that is what convinced me synthetic was faster. :)

The synthetic experience was repeated several times and, I believe, wins by age comparison.

I don't think the LJ comparison means much since both jumps, presumably, were from a fixed solid board. My youthful PB (7.77) was off a dirt path "runway" worn thru the grass alongside a football field. My Masters PB (7.02) was off a synthetic runway. I don't have the age-grade tables but I suspect the latter jump is better.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby user4 » Mon May 27, 2013 2:06 pm

lonewolf wrote:Yeah..that is what convinced me synthetic was faster. :)

The synthetic experience was repeated several times and, I believe, wins by age comparison.

I don't think the LJ comparison means much since both jumps, presumably, were from a fixed solid board. My youthful PB (7.77) was off a dirt path "runway" worn thru the grass alongside a football field. My Masters PB (7.02) was off a synthetic runway. I don't have the age-grade tables but I suspect the latter jump is better.


Someday a promoter should stage a series of track meets on cinder surfaces, doing everything they can to replicate the conditions of Antwerp, Paris, Amsterdam, Los Angeles, Berlin, London, Helsinki, Melbourne, Rome and Tokyo .. Can you imagine the Las Vegas spread on whether any WRs are broken :)
user4
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby Marlow » Mon May 27, 2013 4:04 pm

user4 wrote:Someday a promoter should stage a series of track meets on cinder surfaces, doing everything they can to replicate the conditions of Antwerp, Paris, Amsterdam, Los Angeles, Berlin, London, Helsinki, Melbourne, Rome and Tokyo .. Can you imagine the Las Vegas spread on whether any WRs are broken :)

That has come up before. Have a meet where there run in the old long spikes on grass or cinders/dirt wearing throwback uniforms. It's be grand.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests