Current sprinters on a cinder track?


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

Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby Marlow » Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:39 am

Talking with a friend, we wonder what the current crop, from Bolt on down, could do if you plopped them in Bob Hayes' lane 1 (the chewed up one) on the Tokyo OG cinder track.

I'm guessing that Bolt and Blake would run in the 9.9s, but no one else could break 10 (he ran 10.06).

Whatcha think?

The next question is - what could they do if they had Hayes' lack of modern training methods or biomechanical feedback (he galloped more than ran). I sincerely think no one could break 10.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby lonewolf » Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:53 pm

All things being equal, Hayes would run competitively with the current crop of sprinters.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby mrbowie » Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:25 pm

Hayes would win because power counted more on those crappy tracks. Blake might beat Bolt.
mrbowie
 
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Lexington, Kentucky

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby bambam » Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:44 pm

Don't know - for so many years I just thought Hayes was GOAT by acclamation, but I gotta give it to Bolt now.

But Hayes in 2012, modern training methods, modern tracks, modern equipment vs. Bolt - I sure would like to see that one.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby zidan » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:34 pm

Listen, with all respect to the 'bullet', Up to this point, if you bring them all up from the dead, evryone is chasing Bolt, and if he is at his very best, they would be trailing him by a long way too.
zidan
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:54 pm

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby bambam » Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:26 am

zidan wrote:Listen, with all respect to the 'bullet', Up to this point, if you bring them all up from the dead, evryone is chasing Bolt, and if he is at his very best, they would be trailing him by a long way too.


I don't know that Bullet would be trailing him by a "long way," although I think Bolt would win. I think Bolt is greatest sprinter ever, but Hayes was prior to him. I'd sure love to be able to see that race, with both of them at their best.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby Marlow » Fri Apr 26, 2013 5:45 am

bambam wrote:I don't know that Bullet would be trailing him by a "long way," although I think Bolt would win. I think Bolt is greatest sprinter ever, but Hayes was prior to him. I'd sure love to be able to see that race, with both of them at their best.

Add in modern technical training for Hayes and it would be a TIGHT race (which, sigh, Bolt still wins)
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby gh » Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:20 am

For decades I was convinced I'd never rate anybody ahead of Hayes, but he's not remotely in Bolt's league.

Another one bites the dust. :(
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby user4 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 11:02 am

Hayes to me had it all, every great sprinter after him was great because he had some feature of Hayes and every flaw that a sprinter had was because they lacked a Hayes-like quality... And then fast forward to Bolt, hard to see him not running at least a 9.9 on that Tokyo track back in '64. But I dont think that Hayes would be getting smoked by anyone, not even Bolt. Put Hayes in the same training stable as Bolt and I suspect there would not be more than a step and a half between them. That is saying quite allot about the greatness of Bolt.

Regarding a dirt track, hard to understand that Bolt would be disadvantaged on a dirt track relative to the shorter more powerful sprinters. Seems to me that it could be just the opposite with the taller sprinters faring better on dirt than the shorter stepping counterparts. Id like to understand more about this. Some physicists and mechanics types should weigh in regarding the cinder loss mechanisms.
user4
 
Posts: 1438
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby bambam » Fri Apr 26, 2013 11:28 am

gh wrote:For decades I was convinced I'd never rate anybody ahead of Hayes, but he's not remotely in Bolt's league.

Another one bites the dust. :(


Mostly semantics I think, but I disagree. As stated I think Bolt is the GOAT, but I think the only other guy in his league is Bob Hayes.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby gh » Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:22 pm

Hayes used to be in his league, but after Berlin he got relegated :-)
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby user4 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:34 pm

gh wrote:Hayes used to be in his league, but after Berlin he got relegated :-)


To illuminate, consider the total sprint dominance of Bolt; He has done to the 200 exactly what he did to the 100. He has eclipsed Hayes at 100m and by an even greater margin eclipsed Johnson at 200m. Hayes never did in the 200 what he did at 100m. Who would have expected that the passing of time would make the determination of a goat anything but less clear. Reasonable people were bound to disagree and moreso as more names entered the mix. Yet here we are, all need for imagination has been removed and all the stat haggling is swept away, it is now impossible to deny that Bolt is the sprint goat.
user4
 
Posts: 1438
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby Jackaloupe » Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:47 pm

Hayes would win because power counted more on those crappy tracks. Blake might beat Bolt.

The supposed "crappy tracks" were by no means universal: Most of the top California tracks were not cinder but crushed brick or similar packed substance, so didn't "give" like looser cinders. In fact, they were often too hard, esp. in comparison w/ modern, optimal rebound surfaces.
Smith & Co. were running (in approx. order of quality) at Fresno, Modesto, Compton, Mt. Sac, the Coliseum, Stanford and even San Jose (Santa Barbara CC, down by the harbor, wasn't so bad either). Sorry, never ran at Edwards Field (Cal).

So, don't overlook the rebound parameter, along w/ the Spikes (Pin as opposed to huge "Fangs") and the heavier shoes they required--not that much heavier, as Adidas led the way to lighter (along w/ Puma, w/ Adi Dassler's brother as CEO)
Jackaloupe
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:33 am

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby user4 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:55 pm

Jackaloupe wrote:Hayes would win because power counted more on those crappy tracks. Blake might beat Bolt.

The supposed "crappy tracks" were by no means universal: Most of the top California tracks were not cinder but crushed brick or similar packed substance, so didn't "give" like looser cinders. In fact, they were often too hard, esp. in comparison w/ modern, optimal rebound surfaces.
Smith & Co. were running (in approx. order of quality) at Fresno, Modesto, Compton, Mt. Sac, the Coliseum, Stanford and even San Jose (Santa Barbara CC, down by the harbor, wasn't so bad either). Sorry, never ran at Edwards Field (Cal).

So, don't overlook the rebound parameter, along w/ the Spikes (Pin as opposed to huge "Fangs") and the heavier shoes they required--not that much heavier, as Adidas led the way to lighter (along w/ Puma, w/ Adi Dassler's brother as CEO)


Can you please clarify your assessment of the quality of the tracks, are you saying that Fresno was the best of the bunch and Stanford the worse ? Or was it the other way around?
user4
 
Posts: 1438
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby Jackaloupe » Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:24 pm

Order was top-down, admittedly subjective, from personal experience. Fresno & Modesto were plenty similar; forgot Bakersfield, site of AAU and other meets; nothing wrong w/ Stanford, just a SoCal bias. The Coliseum track had various incarnations: The old one was ripped up (58?) so the Coliseum could host the Dodgers while Chavez Ravine was under construction.

Herb Elliott (Edit: I'd written McKenley, the Jamaican Sprinter) ran sub-4 minutes on the rough grass in a meet hosted by Helms Bakeries, which had its own T & F Hall of Fame.
Jackaloupe
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:33 am

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby gh » Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:39 am

user4 wrote:
gh wrote:Hayes used to be in his league, but after Berlin he got relegated :-)


To illuminate, consider the total sprint dominance of Bolt; He has done to the 200 exactly what he did to the 100. He has eclipsed Hayes at 100m and by an even greater margin eclipsed Johnson at 200m. Hayes never did in the 200 what he did at 100m. Who would have expected that the passing of time would make the determination of a goat anything but less clear. Reasonable people were bound to disagree and moreso as more names entered the mix. Yet here we are, all need for imagination has been removed and all the stat haggling is swept away, it is now impossible to deny that Bolt is the sprint goat.


I may have relegated Hayes, but my list of all-time 200 greats still has Tommie Smith at the top. Bolt 2, MJ 3.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby jmd » Sat Apr 27, 2013 1:02 pm

I think that Bob Hayes still remains the reference and has not been smashed away...

Look :

- I'm not a specialist, but cinder tracks were certainly 0.2 second slower than our modern
and sprint dedicated tracks.
Particularly on line 1 in Tokyo, on that wet cinder !

- add modern training, all year long, nutrition and equipment and medicine,
we are not far from another 0.2 second...

- consider professionalism, attraction of money and all modern facilities,
it's perhaps one 0.1 second less...

So, 10.06 - 0.5 is not far from 9.56 !

It is my very humble opinion and sure, I realize we have been very lucky to admire
such champions as Bob, Jim, Carl, Maurice, Asafa and Usain... waiting for the next one !


JM
jmd
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:34 am
Location: France

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby user4 » Sat Apr 27, 2013 1:13 pm

jmd wrote:I think that Bob Hayes still remains the reference and has not been smashed away...

Look :

- I'm not a specialist, but cinder tracks were certainly 0.2 second slower than our modern
and sprint dedicated tracks.
Particularly on line 1 in Tokyo, on that wet cinder !

- add modern training, all year long, nutrition and equipment and medicine,
we are not far from another 0.2 second...

- consider professionalism, attraction of money and all modern facilities,
it's perhaps one 0.1 second less...

So, 10.06 - 0.5 is not far from 9.56 !

It is my very humble opinion and sure, I realize we have been very lucky to admire
such champions as Bob, Jim, Carl, Maurice, Asafa and Usain... waiting for the next one !


JM


Maybe one of the great things about track and field are the different types that can get the job done, I look at King Carl and see a totally different morphology than Bob Hayes and yet to me there was never a more spectacular 100m performance than Carl's 1984 win. That was the most mesmerizing closing 40 yards I have ever seen.

Likewise consider MJ, who could look at him and think that he was a serious 200/400m man, he ran in a manner reminiscent of an overweight executive shuffling through an airport. But man he just blew past the gracile guys like they were standing still. We really do have alot to be thankful for as fans.
user4
 
Posts: 1438
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby johnclark » Sat Apr 27, 2013 3:09 pm

This question has been done a lot of times on these forums.

As someone (ZatOpek?) once pointed out, there is actually zero hard research out there measuring the time difference between 'natural' (cinders etc) and 'synthetic' tracks.

We just don't know. Most speculate that synthetic tracks are considerably faster. The most common quote in this regard is (I think) from Ron Clarke who thought that synthetic was worth about 1 second per lap, but its a real rough guess. I don't know if that translates to 0.25 seconds for the 100 meters. Of course, synthetic tracks may have improved since those that Clarke ran on as well.

Until someone actually does a proper study then this issue will come down to a matter of which athlete is your favourite. If you are a fan of Hayes, then you will say, "Hayes ran 10.06 in Tokyo in a chewed up ciders lane - that's worth 0.3-0.4 seconds, making him a 9.66-9.76 runner!" On the other hand, if you are a fan of Bolt, then you will say, "Cinders is only worth 0.1 seconds at most - Bolt would beat Hayes easily".

I can't see the discussion going any further than that (i.e. the discussion goes nowhere). Its a pity - we can come up with good estimates for the effect of wind and altitude but not track type.

(Actually, I think there is a bigger difference between modern tracks and the early synthetic tracks of '68 and '72 than the difference between those early synthetics and cinders ). I have no way to prove it though.
johnclark
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:46 am

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby Jackaloupe » Sat Apr 27, 2013 3:46 pm

John sez: bigger difference between modern tracks and the early synthetic tracks of '68 and '72 than the difference between those early synthetics and cinders ).

Good point; I might concur had you not conflated "cinders" with the other "natural" materials I discussed in detail above. In any case, some of those early synthetics were too hard, while some were soft, just crushed up rubber fibers--although the latter were more relegated to PV and LJ/TJ Runways. That's what we had at USC in the late 50s. PV & HJ pits were bags of sponge rubber.
Jackaloupe
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:33 am

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby lonewolf » Sat Apr 27, 2013 8:57 pm

I don't know if there have been scientific studies of the relative merits of cinder/dirt vs various synthetic tracks but anyone who had run seriously on both surfaces knows almost any synthetic track is "faster" than cinders.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby Jackaloupe » Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:12 pm

Agreed, but John still has a valid point: Modernday Synthetic Tracks, with their optimal "rebound"--even if optimal for Distance is not the same as for Sprints/Hurdles--are significantly faster than the widely varying early synthetics. Some of those were too hard, just as some HS tracks remain so.
Furthermore, the continuing conflation of Cinders with the far superior California "Dirt" of the 60s (Even Sanger, not mentioned because no major meets held there) only serves to muddle the discussion, however hypothetical.
Jackaloupe
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:33 am

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby Per Andersen » Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:13 pm

gh wrote:

I may have relegated Hayes, but my list of all-time 200 greats still has Tommie Smith at the top. Bolt 2, MJ 3.

I think it is harder to relegate Hayes in the 100 than Smith in the 200 but I'll relegate them both.
Per Andersen
 
Posts: 3737
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby johnclark » Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:53 am

Jackaloupe wrote:John sez: bigger difference between modern tracks and the early synthetic tracks of '68 and '72 than the difference between those early synthetics and cinders ).

Good point; I might concur had you not conflated "cinders" with the other "natural" materials I discussed in detail above. In any case, some of those early synthetics were too hard, while some were soft, just crushed up rubber fibers--although the latter were more relegated to PV and LJ/TJ Runways. That's what we had at USC in the late 50s. PV & HJ pits were bags of sponge rubber.


Yes, if anything is true about this topic its that both 'natural' (yeah, I included cinders there ... bit of a stretch I guess) and 'synthetic' tracks varied a LOT prior to more standard synthetic tracks at big meets now.

Reading other threads there are a lot of comments like, "I ran my best time on cinders and some of my worst times on synthetic". That seems entirely correct. A good cinders track was very fast and bad synthetic was slow. I doubt that the early synthetic tracks were ever intended to be faster than cinders, just more reliable in a range of weather conditions - they were often called 'all weather' tracks. Of course, once they started down that path then the technology took over and they got faster and faster.

One huge problem in doing any analysis is that the Olympic finals during the change to synthetic were somehow affected by other stuff which makes time comparisons difficult: Mexico by altitude and Munich by Hart/Robinson absence. Montreal was reasonably unaffected (Leonard's absence probably the main thing) but Moscow has these wind readings which are not credible. By the time you get to LA in 1984 I think the technology has moved on, although I would love some more details on the track technology during that 1972-1984 period!
johnclark
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:46 am

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby user4 » Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:24 am

lonewolf wrote:I don't know if there have been scientific studies of the relative merits of cinder/dirt vs various synthetic tracks but anyone who had run seriously on both surfaces knows almost any synthetic track is "faster" than cinders.


That was my experience and it seems to be reasonably well founded on the most basic physics. Fundamentally the dirt cinder tracks are (roughly speaking) unconsolidated sediments, they do not support strains and stresses, they are not elastic. The more they are packed the better they should perform. Otherwise they are very lossy. It is hard for me to imagine any cinder track comparing favorably with most synthetic surface.

Someone may very well have had their best performance on a cinder track, ( I had my HS 440 PR on a beat up cinder track) but we ran 80% of the time on cinder so it is unlikely that it was due to the cinder being superior to the all weather track.

I can recall one synthetic track (circa early 80s) , it wasnt much different than asphalt pavement used on roads. Year in and year out, athletes had 100y and 220y PRs on that track. There were a few synthetic tracks (laid down in the 70s) that seemed a bit lossy, but none were as lossy as cinder.
user4
 
Posts: 1438
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby bambam » Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:55 am

Remember that, for the purposes of much of the discussion of this thread (Hayes v Bolt), the Tokyo track was not really cinders, but more a soft red clay that turned into mush in the rain, and after the 20K walkers had ruined the 1st lane for Hayes (and the 10K had been run there the day before). I still don't really know how much that would have affected the time, but it certainly wouldn't have helped it.

I'll take a guess and say it added 1.7 seconds to his time and he would have run 8.35 - crushing Bolt (take that EGH!) (I liked Hayes)
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby lonewolf » Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:37 pm

It is plausible that many PBs were set on cinders/dirt. I suspect most were set when the runner was in his/her prime before the advent of synthetic tracks.
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.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby rhymans » Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:03 am

Bill - 8.35 for Hayes may not be the most scientific guess you've ever made. I also liked Hayes, and was lucky enough to meet him once (in '88). He told me then that had he run the final of the 100 like he ran the relay he would have run 9.80. I think he'd have been near 9.90 (he gained 6m on Delecour who was in 10.50-ish form). Moving from Tokyo to the London surface could have helped him by a fifth of a second, getting him to 9.70 - but behind Bolt [who is simply the best we've yet seen]
rhymans
 
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby bambam » Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:22 pm

rhymans wrote:Bill - 8.35 for Hayes may not be the most scientific guess you've ever made. I also liked Hayes, and was lucky enough to meet him once (in '88). He told me then that had he run the final of the 100 like he ran the relay he would have run 9.80. I think he'd have been near 9.90 (he gained 6m on Delecour who was in 10.50-ish form). Moving from Tokyo to the London surface could have helped him by a fifth of a second, getting him to 9.70 - but behind Bolt [who is simply the best we've yet seen]


OK, OK, maybe he would have only run around 8.45
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby batonless relay » Thu May 09, 2013 10:36 am

Bolt would have smoked Hayes, imo. All of the London medallist would have, and so would Tyson Gay and a healthy Asafa Powell. And this idea that some how he was disadvantaged by 1964 training facilities...they were probably no worse than what Asafa Powell was using when he ran sub-10...by a lot.

1964 Olympics
10.06 Bob Hayes (6'0"/190)
10.23 Enrique Figuerola (5'6"/148 lbs)
10.27 Harry Jerome (5'11"/170 lbs)

I put the athletes dimensions to illustrate how likely it would have been for Figuerola to run 9.90, because that is exactly what you're projecting for both Jerome and him if (some of) you are projecting 9.5's and 9.6's for Hayes. That's not rational. Also, Hayes, by dimensions seems to be as big and as strong as ANY athlete today - there is a theoretical limit to how much stronger athletes can get you know. Bo Jackson and Herschel Walker NEVER lifted weights in high school or college. Show me another back the size of either with that speed. Matter of fact, knock 30 pounds off of Jackson and Walker and THEY smoke Hayes, too. Find another 6'0/190 athlete. Donovan Bailey was less than 190 and so was Bruny Surin. The point is that Hayes, if he were transported to the present day would not be stronger or faster. He would be the same guy running on a rubberized surface that is probably only better because it gives a consistent result race in and race out, not because it's "faster".

Jesse Owens jumped 8.13 in 19.35; Chuhei Nambi jumped 7.98 with a m/s less wind in 1931 and Sylvio Cato jumped 7.93 with no wind in 1928. I guess you guys want to extrapolate that they were the first 29 footers, too? They certainly would be competitive today as Will Claye Jumped 8.12 for a Bronze medal. But, my opinion is that the LJ is like dna trapped in amber; revealing just how far we've progressed...or not. And since the LJ was run on the same runways where ALL the competitors use the same "lane", I'm going to say that the extra shoes in lane 1 actually helped Hayes. Maybe we should be rounding his time up to Figuerola instead of down to Bolt, Blake, Gay, Powell, Green, etc.

Geezers! :roll: (and I didn't spell that wrong! :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 11:06 am

batonless relay wrote:...
The point is that Hayes, if he were transported to the present day would not be stronger or faster. He would be the same guy running on a rubberized surface that is probably only better because it gives a consistent result race in and race out, not because it's "faster".


yeah, synthetic tracks are not faster than dirt tracks .. makes perfect sense comports with personal theories of armchair physicists and grave diggers everywhere, it is even endorsed by an important a batonless relay guy. :wink:
Last edited by user4 on Thu May 09, 2013 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
user4
 
Posts: 1438
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

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

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:
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 11:15 am

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.
user4
 
Posts: 1438
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Current sprinters on a cinder track?

Postby batonless relay » Thu May 09, 2013 11:23 am

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.

Also, that lane 1 didn't look much different than the other lanes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgkVxoixMm8
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 11:29 am

batonless relay wrote: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.

Also, that lane 1 didn't look much different than the other lanes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgkVxoixMm8

??!!
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.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

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: 1438
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: 1438
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: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests