BoxRec

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑13 Sep 2018, 18:22 Even if Paul Anderson did perform the feats you seen to think he did a single exception wouldn't undermine the fact that athletes prior to the 80s generally can't compete with those today. You would need way more than Paul Anderson. What about Michael Phelps, Brian Shaw, Usain Bolt etc

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑13 Sep 2018, 18:22 Even if Paul Anderson did perform the feats you seen to think he did a single exception wouldn't undermine the fact that athletes prior to the 80s generally can't compete with those today. You would need way more than Paul Anderson. What about Michael Phelps, Brian Shaw, Usain Bolt etc

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑14 Sep 2018, 10:50

This why you need to watch this video. . It specifically talks about Bolt and Owens.

In sports like track for example, the conditions that the athletes are competing in have changed drastically. If Bolt had similar shoesa as Owens, ran on the same track, they each or neither have a starter block, he would be about even with Owens.

In boxing (and some other sports) the equipment has not changed much over the last several decades. This makes it easier to compare. However, it means that (gasp) you are going to have to watch fighters from different eras to get a good idea.

Sometimes a particular modern athlete is better than someone long ago. Sometimes not.
Athletes didn't magically get better in the 1980s when you got interested.

Controversial wrote: ↑14 Sep 2018, 11:07

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑14 Sep 2018, 10:50

This why you need to watch this video. . It specifically talks about Bolt and Owens.

In sports like track for example, the conditions that the athletes are competing in have changed drastically. If Bolt had similar shoesa as Owens, ran on the same track, they each or neither have a starter block, he would be about even with Owens.

In boxing (and some other sports) the equipment has not changed much over the last several decades. This makes it easier to compare. However, it means that (gasp) you are going to have to watch fighters from different eras to get a good idea.

Sometimes a particular modern athlete is better than someone long ago. Sometimes not.
Athletes didn't magically get better in the 1980s when you got interested.

What proof is there that modern race tracks make someone run faster? For the speeds these guys run at, and the time they run it in, I imagine its negligible. Especially when you take into account that Bolt was almost 4 stone heavier than Owens. Also how accurate were the timers in 1936 compared to today where they break them down into fractions of a second? At the end of the day there will be a point that no one can run 100m faster, the record can't keep getting broken.

The faster the event the more minimal the differences will be on paper. If he chose to talk about running the marathon then the fastest mens time in 1936 was 2:26:42, if he played the finishing beep between that time and the fastest ever run marathon of 2:02:57 there would be a 23 minute 45 second delay. That doesn't sound so impressive. Women today run the marathon a lot quicker than the men did in 1936.

That guy in your video only plays the beeps of Bolt and Owens finishing the race because that makes it sound very close, but in fact Bolt leaves Owens for dust if you see them run side by side. Plus the below video is showing Bolt running it in 9.63, not his fastest time of 9.58 seconds.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑14 Sep 2018, 14:03

Controversial wrote: ↑14 Sep 2018, 11:07

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑14 Sep 2018, 10:50

This why you need to watch this video. . It specifically talks about Bolt and Owens.

In sports like track for example, the conditions that the athletes are competing in have changed drastically. If Bolt had similar shoesa as Owens, ran on the same track, they each or neither have a starter block, he would be about even with Owens.

In boxing (and some other sports) the equipment has not changed much over the last several decades. This makes it easier to compare. However, it means that (gasp) you are going to have to watch fighters from different eras to get a good idea.

Sometimes a particular modern athlete is better than someone long ago. Sometimes not.
Athletes didn't magically get better in the 1980s when you got interested.

What proof is there that modern race tracks make someone run faster? For the speeds these guys run at, and the time they run it in, I imagine its negligible. Especially when you take into account that Bolt was almost 4 stone heavier than Owens. Also how accurate were the timers in 1936 compared to today where they break them down into fractions of a second? At the end of the day there will be a point that no one can run 100m faster, the record can't keep getting broken.

The faster the event the more minimal the differences will be on paper. If he chose to talk about running the marathon then the fastest mens time in 1936 was 2:26:42, if he played the finishing beep between that time and the fastest ever run marathon of 2:02:57 there would be a 23 minute 45 second delay. That doesn't sound so impressive. Women today run the marathon a lot quicker than the men did in 1936.

That guy in your video only plays the beeps of Bolt and Owens finishing the race because that makes it sound very close, but in fact Bolt leaves Owens for dust if you see them run side by side. Plus the below video is showing Bolt running it in 9.63, not his fastest time of 9.58 seconds.

What proof is there that moderns tracks makes someone run faster? People have actually run tests. It has been proven. Even today, different tracks make a bit of a difference from other current tracks.

What you run on makes a difference. That really isn't even arguable.
Add that to starter blocks and you have a noticeable difference.
As for accuracy in Owen's day, they were able to measure runners to the 1/10 of second in Owens day. It's not like we have no idea.
Basically we are talking about .6 of a second here. Give Owens the same track, a starting block, and comparable shoes and it is pretty reasonable that he could run about .6 seconds faster.

This guy has actually done some research on all of this.
The problem is that it is inconvenient to what some people want to hear.

Does that mean that Bolt wasn't great? Of course he was. Bit it is silly to think that things like the track, shoes and starter blocks don't make a difference.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑14 Sep 2018, 15:49 It is not negligible. Even when comparing the different tracks that they run on today to each other it it is not always negligible. The tracks they were running on in Owen's day were much different. And again, you have count shoes and the starter blocks. This isn't just me guessing. The guy has done the research.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑14 Sep 2018, 19:34.

What they didn't have was human growth hormone, steroids, diuretics, blood doping, etc etc etc and these drugs become more and more sophisticated and harder to detect and more powerful.

The fact that women today, built like brick shithouses, can run faster than Jim Thorpe (who was a natural freak of nature excelling at all sports) is blatantly obvious the product of drugs.

Controversial wrote: ↑14 Sep 2018, 16:01

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑14 Sep 2018, 15:49 It is not negligible. Even when comparing the different tracks that they run on today to each other it it is not always negligible. The tracks they were running on in Owen's day were much different. And again, you have count shoes and the starter blocks. This isn't just me guessing. The guy has done the research.

He's picked the shortest race to try and prove a point. Why did he not pick the marathon? There have been marathons run barefoot quicker than marathon times from the 1930s. Also marathons run faster by women.

You aren't going to get big differences in a 10 second race but the actual results will be significant due to the speeds involved, you can cover some distance running at 28mph. In fact at 28mph you would travel 41 feet (12.5 meters) in one second. Did you watch that video of Bolt and Owens to see how far behind he was? Starter blocks, fancy trainers and tracks have been about for a very long time and it wasn't until fairly recently that the top sprinters regularly broke 10 seconds, yet we are meant to believe Owens would be running 9.6 seconds? Bolt used to stop sprinting hard in some races and would celebrate with 30m to go and cruise over the line and still won races faster than Owens ran. I just don't buy it that Owens would suddenly be running anywhere near 9.6 second times.


.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑15 Sep 2018, 14:18

Controversial wrote: ↑14 Sep 2018, 16:01

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑14 Sep 2018, 15:49 It is not negligible. Even when comparing the different tracks that they run on today to each other it it is not always negligible. The tracks they were running on in Owen's day were much different. And again, you have count shoes and the starter blocks. This isn't just me guessing. The guy has done the research.

He's picked the shortest race to try and prove a point. Why did he not pick the marathon? There have been marathons run barefoot quicker than marathon times from the 1930s. Also marathons run faster by women.

You aren't going to get big differences in a 10 second race but the actual results will be significant due to the speeds involved, you can cover some distance running at 28mph. In fact at 28mph you would travel 41 feet (12.5 meters) in one second. Did you watch that video of Bolt and Owens to see how far behind he was? Starter blocks, fancy trainers and tracks have been about for a very long time and it wasn't until fairly recently that the top sprinters regularly broke 10 seconds, yet we are meant to believe Owens would be running 9.6 seconds? Bolt used to stop sprinting hard in some races and would celebrate with 30m to go and cruise over the line and still won races faster than Owens ran. I just don't buy it that Owens would suddenly be running anywhere near 9.6 second times.


.

I do think Owens would have run close to 9.6 seconds. Certainly well under 10. I think he would normally run in the 9.7-9.8 rang, similar to Bolt. Sorry, the science shows it.
Of course he didn't go into every even; at least on that video. . Maybe there would be a huge difference in other events.
However, you should not just throw out results because you don't like them.
How about the long jump. Bob Beamon set a record in 1968. It was not broken until the early 1990s. It has not been topped since.

I agree that the conditions have been roughly even for a long time. Bolt is better than guys from the 1990s for example. That doesn't mean he was a lot faster than Owens.

I am not saying that athletes are better from one era than another. It should be taken on a case by case basis.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑14 Sep 2018, 23:53 It's true... Remember Marion Jones? She had a runner's body, and in 2007 was busted for PEDs...

Now compare her to Carmelita Jeter (2012 London Olympics) and the woman has an ass like Beyonce & thick powerlifter legs, with a body like Mr T and she blows away all records...

How can someone with THAT body type smash running records and NOT be on drugs?

At least Marion Jones looked normal despite being on the juice... So can you imagine the sheer amount of drugs these people are taking today to be built like a Clydesdale horse and run like a cheetah.

Controversial wrote: ↑15 Sep 2018, 15:43

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑15 Sep 2018, 14:18

Controversial wrote: ↑14 Sep 2018, 16:01

He's picked the shortest race to try and prove a point. Why did he not pick the marathon? There have been marathons run barefoot quicker than marathon times from the 1930s. Also marathons run faster by women.

You aren't going to get big differences in a 10 second race but the actual results will be significant due to the speeds involved, you can cover some distance running at 28mph. In fact at 28mph you would travel 41 feet (12.5 meters) in one second. Did you watch that video of Bolt and Owens to see how far behind he was? Starter blocks, fancy trainers and tracks have been about for a very long time and it wasn't until fairly recently that the top sprinters regularly broke 10 seconds, yet we are meant to believe Owens would be running 9.6 seconds? Bolt used to stop sprinting hard in some races and would celebrate with 30m to go and cruise over the line and still won races faster than Owens ran. I just don't buy it that Owens would suddenly be running anywhere near 9.6 second times.


.

I do think Owens would have run close to 9.6 seconds. Certainly well under 10. I think he would normally run in the 9.7-9.8 rang, similar to Bolt. Sorry, the science shows it.
Of course he didn't go into every even; at least on that video. . Maybe there would be a huge difference in other events.
However, you should not just throw out results because you don't like them.
How about the long jump. Bob Beamon set a record in 1968. It was not broken until the early 1990s. It has not been topped since.

I agree that the conditions have been roughly even for a long time. Bolt is better than guys from the 1990s for example. That doesn't mean he was a lot faster than Owens.

I am not saying that athletes are better from one era than another. It should be taken on a case by case basis.

Bolt is a lot faster as the video shows and the science doesn't prove anything, its all conjecture. Also did they not run in yards in those days? I thought metres came later. If so 100 yards is only 91m. Asafa Powell holds the unofficial record for the 100 yard dash at 9.07 seconds.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑16 Sep 2018, 17:16
It's all conjecture. Lets just go by the times and pretend that there are no other factors. That way, your guy does better!!
Yes I'm sure Bolt would have ran those times without a starting block, with Owens shoes, on Owens tracks. Come on.
Owens ran both the 100 m and 100 yard; only the 100m in the Olympics. His fastest 100 yard time was 9.4. Given the circumstances, that isn't much slower than Powell at all.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑17 Sep 2018, 10:45 Well you said the factors it was all conjecture. Earlier you asked where was the proof that types of tracks made a difference.
That indicates that you don't think those things were a factor.
Now you say "To propel Owens on a par with Bolt is a stretch when Bolt only run faster than 9.6 once in his life." If anything that makes Bolt's case weaker, pointing out that he only did it once.

The wind speeds (which can help or hurt a runner) really isn't that relevant if it wasn't windy that day. The times going to the .1000 doesn't mean the sport itself is better.
Owens 10.2 could have been 10.24 or it could have been 10.16. However, we have a ball park figure.

All I am saying is that the real evidence that we have points to them being pretty close.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑17 Sep 2018, 18:57 As far as baseball is concerned, I always end up back to Babe Ruth. He was using much heavier bats, and he played less games.