jesse owens at 10.3sec


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

jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby qixmaster » Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:35 pm

during the olympic sprints, nbc flashed a timeline of the dash speeds and posted owens at 10.3.

i don't think they bothered taking the dirt track into consideration. 10.3 is just a flat extrapolation of 100yds to 100meters. can anyone speculate on what owens may have run the 100 meters on today's surface, disregarding equipment etc etc and just focusing on the running surface.
qixmaster
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:24 pm

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby dukehjsteve » Wed Aug 15, 2012 3:49 am

That 10.3 they posted was not an extrapolation from a 100 yard time. It was Owens' actual winning time in the '36 Games.

As to comparing times on dirt/cinders/etc. plus hand times/ auto times, this is an old/old subject with too many variables to make any "conclusions" valid. You run against the other people in the race, somebody wins, somebody loses. Times, for comparison purposes over 75 years, are meaningless.
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6056
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby dj » Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:23 am

Going that far back also gives moderns the advantage of running with blocks instead of holes.
dj
 
Posts: 6199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby Marlow » Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:05 am

It's fun to imagine what historical stars would do if just plopped down on our tracks with our spikes and starting blocks, etc. (we''l give them one week of acclimatization), I posited elsewhere that Jesse could have medalled in London in the LJ (but not 100/200).

My WAG on Jesse in the 100 and 200 is

10.30
20.50
27' (8.20ish)

He could have gone faster with a year's worth of modern training/nutrition/coaching, etc.
I'll guess he could have beaten someone like LeMaitre (for whom I have very high regard), but not Gay or Gatlin, so we're talking

9.8x
19.7x
27'6
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby johnclark » Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:00 am

qixmaster wrote:during the olympic sprints, nbc flashed a timeline of the dash speeds and posted owens at 10.3.

i don't think they bothered taking the dirt track into consideration. 10.3 is just a flat extrapolation of 100yds to 100meters. can anyone speculate on what owens may have run the 100 meters on today's surface, disregarding equipment etc etc and just focusing on the running surface.


I have only been on this forum for a few weeks and already its clear that this is a frequently asked question with no answer. Here are some starting thoughts:

First, Owens' time was measured by a hand stopwatch. There is an enormous amount of evidence that this method underestimates times by between 0.15 and 0.2 seconds for the 100 meters. That would make Owens' time around 10.5 seconds.

Owens' also ran with a strong tail wind - so strong that the time was ineligible to be a world record. I can't find the actual measure of the wind assistence, but let's assume that it was 2 m/s, which is exactly the legal limit. A good rule-of-thumb is that a 1 m/s tailwind subtracts 0.05 from the time for the 100 meters, so that tailwind gave Owens a reduction of around 0.1 seconds, making his 'adjusted' time 10.6 seconds.

Another adjustment would be for changes in rules. At the 1932 Olympics you had to cross the line in order to win - your whole body (not counting arms and legs) had to be over the line. Now you just have to reach the line. I don't know when the rule changed - perhaps someone out there knows - but it would be worth around 0.05 seconds.

OK, they are the easy adjustments. The next easiest adjustment is for the cinder track, and this is difficult! Some use a rule of thumb of 1 second per lap (400m), which would be 0.25 seconds for the 100m. This is widely disputed - most argue that it really depends on the state of the cinder track: some were better than others. Let's be a little conservative and say 0.2 seconds for the cinder track, remembering that this could be really wrong. That puts Owens at 10.4 seconds.

The next question is the lack of starting blocks. Despite some searching I cannot find any attempt to quantify the advantage given by starting blocks compared to holes dug with a trowel. It seems to me to be a significant thing - let's say 0.2 seconds but I really have no idea. That makes Owens 10.2 seconds on a modern track with starting blocks.

Beyond that I don't think you can say much. Of course modern diet, training etc would make a difference but really you can't know.

I hope that helps ...
johnclark
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:46 am

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby user4 » Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:16 am

Marlow wrote:I
He could have gone faster with a year's worth of modern training/nutrition/coaching, etc.
I'll guess he could have beaten someone like LeMaitre (for whom I have very high regard), but not Gay or Gatlin, so we're talking

9.8x
19.7x
27'6



Ill take a shot: Owens beats both Gay and Gatlin, and in the long jump is consistently over 28ft.
user4
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby qixmaster » Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:38 am

the site of a company states their surface returns energy to the runner allowing him to get into his step quicker
qixmaster
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:24 pm

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby dj » Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:02 pm

user4 wrote:
Marlow wrote:I
He could have gone faster with a year's worth of modern training/nutrition/coaching, etc.
I'll guess he could have beaten someone like LeMaitre (for whom I have very high regard), but not Gay or Gatlin, so we're talking

9.8x
19.7x
27'6



Ill take a shot: Owens beats both Gay and Gatlin, and in the long jump is consistently over 28ft.


I doubt Owens becomes a consistent 28-footer. At his best he was relatively consistent in the high-25 region. He was the world's best long jumper over a four-year period, 1933-1936. His best in each year: 1933, 24-11 1/4; 1934, 25-7 1/2; 1935, 26-8 1/4; 1936, 26-3. So, in only the latter two years was he a 26-footer, and in that period only 7 of his 31 meets saw him at 26-feet.

There was no general two-foot improvement when surfaces switched from natural surfaces to synthetic. From 1956 to 1976, the 20-year period during which surfaces changed, the 50th best world performer improved from 7.43 to 7.93. That's 20 inches, with a large number of additional factors explaining that increase, not just the change in jumping surfaces.

The fact is the great advance in long jump distances came as a result of a change in the jumping surface, not the runway surface. It was the introduction of the floor joist in the 1890s which changed the event, providing a solid jumping surface throughout a competition.

(I chose this span of years for several reasons: to get Olympic year surges covered at both ends, to avoid the altitude effects of 1968, and to get late enough in the post-war period that depth levels were getting closer to where they would settle.)
dj
 
Posts: 6199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby user4 » Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:53 pm

dj wrote:
user4 wrote:
Marlow wrote:I
He could have gone faster with a year's worth of modern training/nutrition/coaching, etc.
I'll guess he could have beaten someone like LeMaitre (for whom I have very high regard), but not Gay or Gatlin, so we're talking

9.8x
19.7x
27'6



Ill take a shot: Owens beats both Gay and Gatlin, and in the long jump is consistently over 28ft.


I doubt Owens becomes a consistent 28-footer. At his best he was relatively consistent in the high-25 region. He was the world's best long jumper over a four-year period, 1933-1936. His best in each year: 1933, 24-11 1/4; 1934, 25-7 1/2; 1935, 26-8 1/4; 1936, 26-3. So, in only the latter two years was he a 26-footer, and in that period only 7 of his 31 meets saw him at 26-feet.

There was no general two-foot improvement when surfaces switched from natural surfaces to synthetic. From 1956 to 1976, the 20-year period during which surfaces changed, the 50th best world performer improved from 7.43 to 7.93. That's 20 inches, with a large number of additional factors explaining that increase, not just the change in jumping surfaces.

The fact is the great advance in long jump distances came as a result of a change in the jumping surface, not the runway surface. It was the introduction of the floor joist in the 1890s which changed the event, providing a solid jumping surface throughout a competition.

(I chose this span of years for several reasons: to get Olympic year surges covered at both ends, to avoid the altitude effects of 1968, and to get late enough in the post-war period that depth levels were getting closer to where they would settle.)


A 20" advantage due to various independent technical advantages from 1956 to 1976 (runway surfaces etc.) puts him roughly at 27' 6" in 1976 . You are not too far off from what I suggested for an extrapolation from 1936 to 2012.
Last edited by user4 on Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
user4
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby qixmaster » Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:53 pm

look closely at the youtube vid. you can see clearly, track dirt kicks up at the start. from then on it's harder to see because the camera is moving with the athlete. i defer to all you guys's expertise,,,but flying dirt = loose dirt, and loose dirt is an unstable surface.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6ExXjfq ... re=related
qixmaster
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:24 pm

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby user4 » Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:40 pm

Boy, Metcalfe had a great top end speed too. How in the world did the 5'6" eddie tolan beat him at 200m in LA, 1932 .
user4
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby dj » Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:45 am

user4 wrote:A 20" advantage due to various independent technical advantages from 1956 to 1976 (runway surfaces etc.) puts him roughly at 27' 6" in 1976 . You are not too far off from what I suggested for an extrapolation from 1936 to 2012.


Except that you were claiming Owens would be consistently a 28-footer, and I've shown that he wasn't even a consistent 26-footer.

I don't think the Owens of '35-36 is a 28-footer based only on the change in the runway surface. You need a large variety of other circumstances to change.
dj
 
Posts: 6199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby dj » Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:55 am

user4 wrote:Boy, Metcalfe had a great top end speed too. How in the world did the 5'6" eddie tolan beat him at 200m in LA, 1932 .


The easy answer is Tolan was good, too! But it's more complicated.

Metcalfe's lane was mismeasured and he prbably ran between 1.5 and 2 meters farther than Tolan, possibly as much as 3m. Times for the first three were Tolan 21.2, George Simpson 21.4, Metcalfe 21.5.

Tolan ran in lane 1, Metcalfe in 2 and Simpson in 3. The Metcalfe worked the turn hard to close the gap, but was still behind Tolan and Simpson entering the straight. Metcalfe gained on Simpson, but Tolan pulled away from both. As short as he was, the tightness of the turn should have affected Tolan the least.
dj
 
Posts: 6199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:58 am

Also implying that the 50th best improved 20 inches doesn't mean that those 50 transported 20 years ahead would suddenly be 20 inches better. As dj noted many other factors are involved, such as probably a lot more, and better athletes, competing in 1976 as opposed to 1956.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby user4 » Thu Aug 16, 2012 9:07 am

Conor Dary wrote:Also implying that the 50th best improved 20 inches doesn't mean that those 50 transported 20 years ahead would suddenly be 20 inches better. As dj noted many other factors are involved, such as probably a lot more, and better athletes, competing in 1976 as opposed to 1956.


indeed and Jesse would have beat them all.
user4
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby user4 » Thu Aug 16, 2012 9:11 am

dj wrote:
user4 wrote:A 20" advantage due to various independent technical advantages from 1956 to 1976 (runway surfaces etc.) puts him roughly at 27' 6" in 1976 . You are not too far off from what I suggested for an extrapolation from 1936 to 2012.


Except that you were claiming Owens would be consistently a 28-footer, and I've shown that he wasn't even a consistent 26-footer.

I don't think the Owens of '35-36 is a 28-footer based only on the change in the runway surface. You need a large variety of other circumstances to change.


To be more specific, Jesse Owens born in Alabama in 1990 with the same talent and attitude as Jesse Owens in 1936 is a 28 foot long jumper. I should have been careful with the word consistent, Allow me: He would, over a 5 year period, be at or over 28 ft.
user4
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Aug 16, 2012 9:43 am

user4 wrote:
dj wrote:
user4 wrote:A 20" advantage due to various independent technical advantages from 1956 to 1976 (runway surfaces etc.) puts him roughly at 27' 6" in 1976 . You are not too far off from what I suggested for an extrapolation from 1936 to 2012.


Except that you were claiming Owens would be consistently a 28-footer, and I've shown that he wasn't even a consistent 26-footer.

I don't think the Owens of '35-36 is a 28-footer based only on the change in the runway surface. You need a large variety of other circumstances to change.


To be more specific, Jesse Owens born in Alabama in 1990 with the same talent and attitude as Jesse Owens in 1936 is a 28 foot long jumper. I should have been careful with the word consistent, Allow me: He would, over a 5 year period, be at or over 28 ft.


And you are talking out of your hat. The same talent and attitude, 54 years later? What does that even mean? This isn't The Twilight Zone.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby user4 » Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:25 pm

Conor Dary wrote:
user4 wrote:
dj wrote:
user4 wrote:A 20" advantage due to various independent technical advantages from 1956 to 1976 (runway surfaces etc.) puts him roughly at 27' 6" in 1976 . You are not too far off from what I suggested for an extrapolation from 1936 to 2012.


Except that you were claiming Owens would be consistently a 28-footer, and I've shown that he wasn't even a consistent 26-footer.

I don't think the Owens of '35-36 is a 28-footer based only on the change in the runway surface. You need a large variety of other circumstances to change.


To be more specific, Jesse Owens born in Alabama in 1990 with the same talent and attitude as Jesse Owens in 1936 is a 28 foot long jumper. I should have been careful with the word consistent, Allow me: He would, over a 5 year period, be at or over 28 ft.


And you are talking out of your hat. The same talent and attitude, 54 years later? What does that even mean? This isn't The Twilight Zone.


Is there someone not talking out of their hat? I would like to meet them.
user4
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:31 pm

user4 wrote:
Is there someone not talking out of their hat? I would like to meet them.


Many. dj for one.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby user4 » Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:26 pm

Conor Dary wrote:
user4 wrote:
Is there someone not talking out of their hat? I would like to meet them.


Many. dj for one.


A fellow jumps 26+ feet in 1936 and you find it in the realm of the twilight zone to extrapolate a 5 year career of 28+ ft jumping in the 2010s .
user4
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby telf » Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:19 pm

Jesse was a terrific athlete and a true great of t&f.

Guesstimating what greats of the past would achieve today is fun.

I find that a key component of the guestimate is to consider the collateral form of the athlete v contemporaries.

The reason I struggle with Jesse as a 28ft + jumper is, for example, the proximity of Eulace Peacock and Luz Long at 26'3 and 25'11 respectively and there were quite a few others in '36 including Kermit King, John Brooks, Robert Clark at well over 25ft, not to mention others like the great Willie Steele at 25'7 1/2 during the war as an 18 year old and a marginal foul at 26'10 to win the '48 trials.

Put simply, if Jesse is over 28 ft in modern times based on his PB then there would be lots more 27 ft plus jumpers today based on PBs from the mid-30s to mid-40s. This is a little unlikely unless you are prepared to accept that long jumping has gone backward in terms of strength in depth over the last 75 years.

Furthermore, Eulace Peacock beat JO in the long jump and had a winning record against him over 100m which is also a reason why I struggle to guesstimate Jesse at the pinnacle of GOAT sprinting as well as GOAT long jumping.

One thing that would be in Jesse's favour re the 28ft today argument is that he retired at 22 yrs with his best long jump years ahead of him and based on modern development curves for LJ who really knows what he might have achieved.
Mike Powell set his PB at 27 with Carl Lewis setting his at 30 and Larry Myricks at 32.
telf
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:50 am

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby user4 » Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:58 am

telf wrote:The reason I struggle with Jesse as a 28ft + jumper is, for example, the proximity of Eulace Peacock and Luz Long at 26'3 and 25'11 respectively and there were quite a few others in '36 including Kermit King, John Brooks, Robert Clark at well over 25ft, not to mention others like the great Willie Steele at 25'7 1/2 during the war as an 18 year old and a marginal foul at 26'10 to win the '48 trials.

Put simply, if Jesse is over 28 ft in modern times based on his PB then there would be lots more 27 ft plus jumpers today based on PBs from the mid-30s to mid-40s. This is a little unlikely unless you are prepared to accept that long jumping has gone backward in terms of strength in depth over the last 75 years.
....
One thing that would be in Jesse's favour re the 28ft today argument is that he retired at 22 yrs with his best long jump years ahead of him and based on modern development curves for LJ who really knows what he might have achieved.
Mike Powell set his PB at 27 with Carl Lewis setting his at 30 and Larry Myricks at 32.


1) Jesse fits the Carl Lewis mold: 100/200 elite level performer with a devotion to the long jump. In fact one could argue that Carl would have never thought to be Carl if it were not for Jesse.

2) It makes sense to me that Long, Peacock would be 27mid jumpers today.

3) It does not follow that "if jesse ... there would be more 27ft jumpers today" , I think others have hinted at such an argument above. There is only so much room in Athletics. If you are not in the top 20 pretty quick (roughly 22 yrs) you are not going to be around long. We dont see a thousand 26 ft long jumpers because society/market does not need them. (as an aside one way to remedy this is to institute a more broad sharing of awards. Recognize 1st through 10th place. This could get more athletes in athletics earlier and staying in for a longer time)

4) Related to this is that big dollars flow copiously to the very very top performers. In athletics this makes this generation's greats much, much greater as the money and advantage is focused at the top, stretch out the performance scale at the top, in doing so it makes the near-greats merely also-rans.
user4
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby telf » Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:49 pm

Good post User4 which I generally agree with.

Sometimes I think I debate for the sake of debate :lol:

Jesse was my first true giant of t & f.

I saw Leni Riefenstahl's Olympia many times before I was 10 years old and, to this particular young boy, the Jesse of Berlin (and Ann Arbor) was a superman.

We grow old and we read more and we get smarter but not always wiser and most of the time our boyhood supermen become mortals.

On reflection, I also have no issue with modern day Peacock and Long at mid 27 up to 28 and if you consider the 16 men who have jumped 28ft + it's hard not to be convinced that Jesse is some way ahead of the majority of these in terms of LJ ability.
telf
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:50 am

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby mrbowie » Sat Aug 18, 2012 7:17 pm

TEF:

There is no such word as "guesstimate."

There is every reason to believe that Jesse Owens would have jumped closer to 30 feet than 28 feet, based on the conditions under which he jumped.

There is every reason to believe that, on balance, the long jumpers of his era were better than the long jumpers that competed in London in 2012.

The modern day long jumper sucks. It is probably the worst event in all of track and field in terms of the quality of the performers.
mrbowie
 
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Lexington, Kentucky

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby user4 » Sat Aug 18, 2012 7:49 pm

telf wrote:Jesse was my first true giant of t & f.

I saw Leni Riefenstahl's Olympia many times before I was 10 years old and, to this particular young boy, the Jesse of Berlin (and Ann Arbor) was a superman.

On reflection, I also have no issue with modern day Peacock and Long at mid 27 up to 28 and if you consider the 16 men who have jumped 28ft + it's hard not to be convinced that Jesse is some way ahead of the majority of these in terms of LJ ability.


That is a good point, take a look at that list of performers over 27mid and there are very few that jump out at you as being superior LJers to Jesse Owens. Even among gold medalists, the great Carl Lewis yes, the great Arnie Robinson, close call, maybe not.
user4
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby telf » Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:21 am

mrbowie » Sun Aug 19, 2012 3:17 am
There is no such word as "guesstimate."


Ah mrbowie if only that was true :cry:

From wikipedia:

Guesstimate is an informal English contraction of guess and estimate, first used by American statisticians in 1934 or 1935. It is defined as an estimate made without using adequate or complete information, or, more strongly, as an estimate arrived at by guesswork or conjecture.
telf
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:50 am

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby telf » Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:05 am

by mrbowie » Sun Aug 19, 2012 3:17 am
There is every reason to believe that, on balance, the long jumpers of his era were better than the long jumpers that competed in London in 2012.
The modern day long jumper sucks. It is probably the worst event in all of track and field in terms of the quality of the performers.


I agree that long jumpers of the mid-30s were better than those of the 2012 vintage.

I also agree that modern LJ sucks and is currently the poorest performing event in field (400m is, for me, the track equivalent)

The lack of progress in LJ has been masked for 30 + years by one or two stand-out performers in each ranking year disguising the mediocrity of the middle order.

For me the US has always been the home of great and good long jumping.

Where have all the great US long jumpers gone?

2012 is particularly bleak with 27ft 5 as the current WL given it's nearly 50 years since Boston and Ter-Ovanesyan were jumping that far and 77 years since Jesse jumped less than 9 inches short of this mark.
telf
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:50 am

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby user4 » Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:46 pm

it will be interesting to see what happens on the post 2012OG euro circuit in the next month. I am not willing to throw the 2012 crop of LJers under the bus yet. If Rutherford or Watts pops off a big one >8.5 our negative assessments should be tempered. Remember the OG LJ competition was held in less than favorable conditions.

Back to the point, Jesse would have won the 2012 LJ by a healthy margin in any conditions!
user4
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby Conor Dary » Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:21 pm

user4 wrote:

Back to the point, Jesse would have won the 2012 LJ by a healthy margin in any conditions!


He also would have brought world peace, ended poverty, and got the Wikileaks guy out of the old IAAF building in London.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby user4 » Sun Aug 19, 2012 2:11 pm

Conor Dary wrote:
user4 wrote:

Back to the point, Jesse would have won the 2012 LJ by a healthy margin in any conditions!


He also would have brought world peace, ended poverty, and got the Wikileaks guy out of the old IAAF building in London.


And his smile would have softened your heart :).. Ok, he might not have won by a "healthy" margin, but my estimate is that he would have won.
user4
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby mrbowie » Sun Aug 19, 2012 2:31 pm

telf wrote:
mrbowie » Sun Aug 19, 2012 3:17 am
There is no such word as "guesstimate."


Ah mrbowie if only that was true :cry:

From wikipedia:

Guesstimate is an informal English contraction of guess and estimate, first used by American statisticians in 1934 or 1935. It is defined as an estimate made without using adequate or complete information, or, more strongly, as an estimate arrived at by guesswork or conjecture.


Wikipedia: the true source of worldwide knowledge. Gimme a free-king break pal!
mrbowie
 
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Lexington, Kentucky

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby mrbowie » Sun Aug 19, 2012 2:32 pm

I'll tell you where all of the great long jumpers are--they are playing football.
mrbowie
 
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Lexington, Kentucky

Re: jesse owens at 10.3sec

Postby user4 » Sun Aug 19, 2012 8:39 pm

that is not what I see, I see football players becoming more specialized, thicker, stronger , quicker but not ideal long jumpers , maybe, the nfl wr corp has a few and the nba a few more ...
user4
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests