Run-Down Forums Forum Index Run-Down Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Run-Down Forums Forum Index
Sprint Central
My pick for the 4 greatest sprinters (100 MY)
Post new topic   Reply to topic

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Run-Down Forums Forum Index -> Sprint Central
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Chief Pontificator


Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2003 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I might just adopt as my 100m best not the 11.1 I ran in a proper meet but the 10.67 I ran downhill, on a short course, started by a gun with no flash, timed by my friend Bill on his wristwatch

Hey, I think I was in that race, too! Laughing I was trying to remember where I ran that 10.7, getting nipped at the line...

Dan
_________________
I get injured so you don't have to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jeffh
Water Boy
Water Boy


Joined: 14 Apr 2002
Posts: 47
Location: NC

PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2003 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Justin wrote:
Jeff, I have never tried to set myself up as an all-knowing sprint guru so your childish comment to that effect makes no sense. I agree that it's only fun - you seem to be the only one dying in a ditch to protect your picks.


I didn't mean to offend you .Daivid Willoughby was a world authority,statistician and historian on athletic performance and alive in Williams era, didn't think it was a con.
It very well good be BS but you don't know that for a fact.Get the book "The Super Athletes", you'll probably find it interesting.He also doesn't mention other pro's fantastic claims, only Williams.

justin wrote:
My definitive source of WR-level marks is the IAAF's "Progression of World Best performances and Official IAAF records". This includes every world best mark whether officially ratified or not and makes no mention of RP Williams or any 9.0 100y times. I also have a vast amount of historical data, cuttings, old stats books and ATFS publications.


I know there is no mention on Williams by the IAAF, I emailed them several times with no response.Like I said its probably BS but you state it as fact.

Justin wrote:
The most authoritative is "A History of Modern Track and Field Athletics 1860-1990" by Roberto Quercetani, perhaps the greatest of all track historians and certainly the most respected. He said that "the least one can say about the times of early sprinters is that they must be taken with a sizeable grain of salt. The fastest times were usually recorded in professional races, where the financial terms involved made all tricks possible". He also makes brief mention of RP Williams, as follows: "In America wide publicity was given to some incredible times credited to a pro by the name of RP Williams, who between 1904 and 1906 collected four 9 1/5 marks and even a 9 flat, apparently recorded by three timers at Winthrop, MA, in 1906...[If] there was a trick of some sort, we obviously cannot say what it was, but these exploits certainly sound somewhat 'fishy'."


I agree those times are "somewhat fishy".But "somewhat fishy" and "nonsense" is very different.


Justin wrote:
Personally, since you ask, I have been keeping 100m stats and records for around 20yrs, have been a member of the Association of Track and Field Statisticians (ATFS, the international stats body), National Union of Track Statisticians (NUTS, UK equivalent) and was also a member of FAST (US stats body) for a while. I have published historical and statistical articles in both print and on the web (some of them on Run-Down). I have around 10MB of raw stat data in Excel files and around 800 books in my library.


Impressive, I really mean that.Its nice to have someone so knowledgeable on this forum.Like I said the "Super Athletes" is interesting reading.He has alot about Williams in the book.Boy,doesn't that make you want to go out and buy it.
I wasn't comparing my credentials with yours.I was comparing Willoughby's with yours.I don't pretend to know squat.

Justin wrote:
So, credentials on the table, I say again that these times are A FANTASY. You shouldn't need me to tell you that - it is perfectly obvious that no-one was running 9.0 at that time. The very best 100y runners around the turn of the century ran 10.0. A few professionals were credited with 9 4/5 or 9 3/5 times, all of them with considerable doubts regarding timing, starting or the track (short, sloping, you name it). There were no standardised rules for starting protocol, officials or timers. Watches were not reliable to time in tenths. There is no wind information.

No doubt the book on RP Williams was great. I have a couple of biographies of old pro sprinters myself and they also attribute obviously fantastic or unreliable marks. Mostly these turn out to have been marketing puff by the pro sprinter's entourage - think modern day boxing to get a real flavour of what track was like in the pro days around the turn of the century.


Again ,9.0/100Y in 1906, unlikely but not "FANTASY".Sprinting wasn't Williams only claim to fame if half of whats stated is true.

Justin wrote:
On drugs, every single generation of sprinters since the 60s has had drug users so to pick out Borzov is unfair. In fact it is likely that drug use has gone up not down since the 70s since there is so much more money and science in the sport now. I certainly don't agree that steroids were more of a factor, or more likely to be a factor, in Borzov's time than now or the 80s or 90s.


The reason I picked Borzov was because the Russians were known to be
years ahead in drug department.You will probably disagree with this too.


Justin wrote:
Clearly I don't have proof that Johnson was set up. However, the facts are there: he tested positive for a different drug to the one he claimed under oath and the medical documentation kept by his doctor proved this - he was taking Furzabol, not Stanozolol (which is a cheap and low quality bodybuilder's drug, not the sort of high quality steroid taken by a world class athlete). The test found pure crystals of the drug, which only happens in the first few pees after consuming something. Read Charlie Francis' book Speed Trap for his side - it's worth reading despite his obvious bias. And given what has emerged about drug cover-ups and conspiracies since, I think it is only a matter of time before we find out what really happened in Seoul.


I would give "The Super Athletes" as much credibility as "Speed Trap".

Justin wrote:
Not that it makes any difference to this discussion. In fact, none of the above makes any difference to the discussion - if you want to go on believing fantasy times then I might just adopt as my 100m best not the 11.1 I ran in a proper meet but the 10.67 I ran downhill, on a short course, started by a gun with no flash, timed by my friend Bill on his wristwatch (which actually records to thousandths, but I rounded them up).


And my 9.9/100Y in high school could really have been 10.6 because it was hand-timed.

Justin[/quote]


Last edited by jeffh on Thu May 08, 2003 11:47 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jeffh
Water Boy
Water Boy


Joined: 14 Apr 2002
Posts: 47
Location: NC

PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2003 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here are some facts on Furzabol;

Furazabol



Current brand names and companies

Only one company makes furazabol: Daiichi Seyaku (Japan).


Historical perspective

This steroid came made the news when Ben Johnson tested positive for it at the 1988 Olympics. Rumors were that it was this elusive steroid that helped him pass so many drug tests beforehand. Chemical analysis of alleged furazabol vials revealed it to be just repackaged stanolozol, though. Furazabol has been popular with track and field athletes because of its low detectability. It is a synthetic derivative of DHT, and tests for its metabolites only came out in 1990. Some athletes have escaped positive testing even when taking it up to three days before a competition. Some sources say that Bulgarian competitive athletes take it in small amounts to escape detection. It does not have much of a following in bodybuilding because it's difficult to get and very expensive at more than $1.30 for a 1-mg tablet.


Dosage

For the treatment of hyperlipidemia, the recommended dosage is 2-6 mg per day. However, for muscle and strength building, athletes report that a minimum of 10 mg a day is needed. And athletes often triple that amount. Because of its very short half-life, the drug has to be taken in multiple dosages throughout the day.


Beneficial effects

Does not aromatize.
Has a low detectability on doping tests.
Effective for lowering blood lipids. It's used for that purpose in Japanese clinical medicine for patients susceptible to arteriosclerosis and elevated serum cholesterol levels.
Increases the level of HDL, better known as the good cholesterol.
Does not upset the water and electrolyte balance.


Negative side effects

Has hepatotoxic potential at higher dosages.


Drugs commonly stacked with furazabol

Furazabol is normally used after going off orals with a higher detectability such as oxymethenolone and methandrostenolone.



Rating



Mass
**

Strength
**

Contest preparation
**
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Chief Pontificator


Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2003 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just to be safe, I ought to caution everyone to try and remain civil. I think everything that's been said above has been in the interest of discussion, so let's leave it at that and stay as far from taking things personally as possible. Not singling anyone out, just putting that out there for everyone's benefit. Smile

Quote:
I would give "The Super Athletes" as much credibility as "Speed Trap".

I haven't read The Super Athletes, so I can't really comment on the comparison other than what I've read of it here in this forum. However, I think if you were to read Speed Trap you would scratch that comment from the records... It deals with documented events and is so thorough in its approach that it is very difficult to disagree with. That's why I made reference to Francis' possible bias, yet never having really been refuted.

Dan
_________________
I get injured so you don't have to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Chief Pontificator


Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2003 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jeff, you may be giving Paul a run for his money as the local drug guru. Thumbs Up

Dan
_________________
I get injured so you don't have to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jeffh
Water Boy
Water Boy


Joined: 14 Apr 2002
Posts: 47
Location: NC

PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2003 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dan wrote:
Just to be safe, I ought to caution everyone to try and remain civil. I think everything that's been said above has been in the interest of discussion, so let's leave it at that and stay as far from taking things personally as possible. Not singling anyone out, just putting that out there for everyone's benefit. Smile


If those comments were directed at me,I agree,I will remain civil.Heck, Justin probably forgot more than I know about t&F.Somtimes I speak before I think.He's more than likely right about Williams but it still dosen't mean I have to agree with everything said.I really had no idea he had the
credibility he has.I thought he was just another fan.

Dan wrote:
I haven't read The Super Athletes, so I can't really comment on the comparison other than what I've read of it here in this forum. However, I think if you were to read Speed Trap you would scratch that comment from the records... It deals with documented events and is so thorough in its approach that it is very difficult to disagree with. That's why I made reference to Francis' possible bias, yet never having really been refuted.


Whats his reasoning for Johnson being singled out and framed?

Dan[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Conway
Olympic Medalist
Olympic Medalist


Joined: 25 Aug 2001
Posts: 3570
Location: Northen California

PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2003 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow ... Lots going on here ... Where to start since I am short on time right now ...

RP Williams ... I agree with Justin here ... Just becasue it is ina book doesn't make it so ... I can tell you about all sorts of discrepancies regarding black history that are written in books ... Publishing does not create authority ... Given the timing methods, available conditions etc, just not reliable ...

Bailey ... As Dan stated, he looks much better on paper than he did on the track ... His 95 win was against one of the weakest fields in the last 2 decades .... And his 96 win came (how do I want to put this) in a very poor situation ... Yes everyone had to deal with the same conditions ... But if ever a race should have been halted and run at a later time it was this one ... Bailey held up better than the others ... And he did run a WR ... But what should have been a superb race was terribly marred .. The fact that a WR and a few fast times were the result was due primarily to the track itself ... Of course history is never written that way ..

Carl (again history as I watched it unfold) was the dominat 100 man for only a sort period of time and then by default ... Carl's true "reign" was from 1981 through 1984 (maybe 85) ... The 80 boycott chased away talent like Steve Williams, Clancy Edwards, Steve Riddick, and REggie Jones who became unwilling to continue to wait .. The top new kids, James Sanford amd Stanley Floyd, also chose to leave the sport ... Floyd to try football and Sanford unclear (although drugs have been mentioned a lot) ... This left Lewis, Calvin Smith, Ron Brown and Mel Lattany as the top dogs heading into the Olympics ... What are the chances that all three of his toughest rivals would be injured in 84 ??? And that Brown and Lattany would leave the sport to play and try to play football ??? The 80's was the era that truly robbed track and field !!!! Once the sport became professionalized in the mid 80's Carl was never again "The Man"in this race save for his '91 Tokyo victory ... Carl only set 1 WR (Tokyo) ... He won nothing on the track in '88 ... And quite frankly the setting up of Ben that Justin refers to is highly rumored to have been done by Mr. Lewis himself (that's not recent but goes back to '88 itself) ... As Justin stated Ben did not take what he was busted for ... Anyway ... I am jsut one who feels that Carl's 100 meter career is remembered more wistfully than it actually occured .. He was "given" more gold thatn he actually earned ... And he never truly faced his toughest competition during his "reign" and once the competition stayed witht he sport his "reign" ended ...

Question for the group ... How do you rate a down period in an event ??? Is he who dominates considered to be as great as an athlete who dominates during a 'strong" period for the event ???
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Paul
Olympic Medalist
Olympic Medalist


Joined: 28 Apr 2002
Posts: 1610
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2003 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Jeff, you may be giving Paul a run for his money as the local drug guru.


Oh, boy!! Just the kind of reputation I was looking for!! Wink Surprised

Speed Trap was my favorite book of 2002 along with Running With the Buffaloes.

Justin, when you mentioned Quercetani, I had to stand and salute Exclamation Exclamation
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Chief Pontificator


Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2003 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If those comments were directed at me,I agree,I will remain civil.

It was actually a general comment; not directed at you.

Quote:
He's more than likely right about Williams but it still dosen't mean I have to agree with everything said.

I don't think anyone here would take issue with that. If we all agreed, there wouldn't be much point discussing things...

Quote:
Whats his reasoning for Johnson being singled out and framed?

Francis doesn't really go into that, which in part is the strength of the book. He sticks to what he knows and doesn't really venture any guesses, although there are a few incriminating hints aimed at the Lewis camp. The story, as I heard it, was that a French reporter walked in on a secret session discussing Ben and various drug issues at Seoul. He threatened to break the story, and somehow out of that came the fake positive. Probably lots of people trying to cover their butts. I wonder how many of those suits are still running the sport into obscurity...

Quote:
But if ever a race should have been halted and run at a later time it was this one ... Bailey held up better than the others ...

Part of the beauty of that race, in my opinion, is how much tension and drama was created, and how spectacular Bailey's resulting run was. When he barrelled ahead around 60m, it was like he was breaking free from all the peripheral garbage and just off in his own world.

Regarding Carl and his 100m legacy, I wonder if part of the image is actually due to his relay anchoring? The 4x100 is so closely associated with top 100m runners that that may well have influenced the lasting impression of many.

Dan
_________________
I get injured so you don't have to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Justin
Varsity
Varsity


Joined: 08 Oct 2001
Posts: 312
Location: London

PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2003 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On Borzov, I am always quick to jump to his defence because of the rancour surrounding his win in 1972. It was at the height of the cold war, the US had had a glorious group of sprinters in the 1960s and thought the sprints were American territory.

Then the US's two best guys mess up and miss the quarters, leaving Borzov to win a title that most neutrals think he would have won anyway (just faster) but which US fans have understandably always resented. The headline in the NY Times next day was "The World's Fastest Man Is A Commie"! Borzov was then systematically derided as a 'man-made' sprinter, a creation of scientists, a picture added to by Soviet propaganda showing him surrounded by men in whte coats carrying clipboards.

All the while the US was leading the way in use of performance enhancing drugs (as it has continued to do). What the state organised in the USSR, simple supply and demand delivered in the US, especially on university campus's where the overlap between the track team and the US football team was so great. Borzov almost certainly used drugs in his programme, although we can never know for sure, but to single him out as more likely than any of his contemporaries, US included, to have done so is unfair and feels like a hangover from the initial reaction to his win in 72.

There was also a delicious social irony in the US complaints that Borzov was man-made and not natural. When black sprinters started dominating 100m from the 30s onwards, there were many complaints that the apparent 'natural advantage' of blacks was less worthy of credit than the achievements of hard training, technically perfect white sprinters. Blacks were derided as being genetically advantaged yet technically raw and lazy. Yet in 72 it was Borzov's very technical perfection which was used as evidence of his lesser talent. He didn't just win in 72 remember, he beat the Americans in 76 as well and on many other occasions during the 70s.

Anyway, he figures in most 100m all-time top 10s and would do in mine. It is possible to go through all our candidates and demolish them, as Conway so effectively did for Carl Lewis above. The one name who stands out on all criteria is actually Mo Greene - dominant on the clock, in champs and against the highest quality opposition possible. Perhaps we can't really appreciate someone until they are done and we look back.

Justin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jeffh
Water Boy
Water Boy


Joined: 14 Apr 2002
Posts: 47
Location: NC

PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2003 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I always liked Borzov and thought he would have won OG in 72 reguardless of the US.

I always wanted him to run a sub10/100m.Oh well, he came close.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Conway
Olympic Medalist
Olympic Medalist


Joined: 25 Aug 2001
Posts: 3570
Location: Northen California

PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2003 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Justin ... I didn't demolish Carl ... I just filled in a few historical blanks ... As for Borzov, he is one of my favorite all time sprinters ... I only rate Williams better during that era ... And that is on ability not titles as Borzov won the medals ... The only part about Borzov that I don't agree with Justin on is his winning the 100 over Hart ...

We will never know the truth but Hart was as good as has ever been ... Earlier I said I was tempted to put Hart in my top 4 and here is why ... Hart walked away after 72 ... Despondent and very disappointed .. 6 years later he returned to the sport ... Hart's auto timed PR came after this 6 year hiatus !!!! His 10.07 came AFTER he came back ... Time had healed his pain and he decided he still had something left to give the sport ... Irony of ironies is that the US decided to boycott the 80 games and so once again Eddie left the sport !!! Eddie clearly could have run sub 10 had he stayed with the sport initially ... An explosive and smooth sprinter he was strong technically as well as physically gifted ... Anyone who witnessed the anchor in Munich knows that he was every bit the equal of Borzov if not superior ...

Back to Carl ... I know I have a reputation for attacking icons ... I guess I just don't see them through rose colored glasses as others often do ... One other comment I would like to make regarding at least some American icons, is that the public images of many have been shaped by Track and Field News ... They have built up those they have chose to and ignored others ... So you a lot of hype around guys like Lewis, MJ and Moses ... But little around guys like Myricks, Calvin Smith, Allen Johnson and others who have had their own stellar careers with seemingly little notice ...

Oh ... And in spite of my feelings for MR Lewis, I will say that his long jump career was teh second most impressive field event career in history as far as I am concerned ... Just didn't think he was all that in the sprints ... Sometimes teh most important parts of history are the stories that are left out ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jeffh
Water Boy
Water Boy


Joined: 14 Apr 2002
Posts: 47
Location: NC

PostPosted: Fri May 09, 2003 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a question for Justin;

In David Willoughby's book "The Super Athletes" he discusses RP Williams
being the fastest sprinter of alltime but beacause he was a "pro" and not at sanctioned meets the records weren't recognized by the AAU.He said
Williams turned pro when he became a track coach at Tufts College ,MA.
He supposely was well known around that time, being tested by Dr. Dudley
Allen Sargent ,at Harvard University.The book said , in 1902 after he was a pro he became acquainted with Eugen Sandow and gained the desire to become as strong as possible.He gained about 20 pounds and thats when he set all those records.

"Here is a list of Williams accomplishments in gymnastics and varied athletics from 1898-1910:100 yard dash (on 3 separate occasions) 9
seconds flat;100 meters, 9 4/5;400 meters, 46 3/5;mile run 4 min 25 sec;
running broad jump 26 ft. 01/2 in.;standing broad jump with weights,13 ft. 3 in.; vertical jump,34.9 in.; running high kick,10 ft. 3 in;standing jump off one foot and kick, 9 ft. 6 in.;shot put(16 lbs.),47 ft. 9 in.;shot put(12 lbs),57 ft. 3 in.; discus throw, 142 ft. 9 in; baseball throw, 415 ft. 3 in.;
circling bases(baseball),12 sec. flat;chinning the bar, 48 times; dipping
on parallel bars, 55 times;high jump on ice skates, 4 ft. 6 in."The book also said" one of Williams most outstanding abilities was as a handball player.During a 48-year period between 1895 and 1943(when he was 69!)
,Williams engaged in 14,657 games of one-wall handball without losing a single game!Jim Thorpe called Williams"the fastest sprinter who ever lived,"and Williams surpassed Thorpe in no fewer than 19 different track and filed events."The book also said the following sprinting records were assertedly performed by Williams during 1904-1906:20 yards 2-1/5 sec.;
50 yards, 5 sec.;60 yards, 6 sec.;100 yards, 9 sec.;100 meters 9-4/5 sec.;135 yards, 12-1/5 sec.;220 yards,20-2/5 sec.There has been a great deal of questioning the authenticity of these figures,especially the 100 yards in 9 seconds flat.This feat was assertedly accomplished by Williams on June 2, 1906, at Winthrop, Massachusetts,"on a truly measured track and against 5 absolutely perfect watches."

All the above could be highly exaggerated or total BS for all I know.I do know those times match up.5/50,6/60,9/100y,9-4/5/100m all are in line so they weren't exaggerating try outright lies if he couldn't perform these
feats.I thought Williams ran these times as a track and gymnastics coach
but his professional status kept the records from counting.

My question is;Did the pro sprinters at the turn of the century travel
around like a circus challenging locals to races for money?Did their "entourage" place bets against the public to see if the sprinter could
beat certain times?What was the purpose of short tracks,pay offs,timing errors,etc, if there times weren't accepted anyway.To me it would seem like a conflict of interest for a paid employee at a College to engage at such activity.Plus a lot of Williams assertions could easily be disproved.You can either chin the bar 49X or you can't, the same with dipping.Williams was obviously known in that era for Thorpe to make those comments about him.I'II admit the handtiming plus the 1/5 stopwatchs could be off but I question the outright forgery on those times.
I will say this about 1/5 stopwatchs, in races i ran in high school and city touraments , I had a friend time me with a 1/5 stopwatch and it was very close to the time I was recorded by the timers.I think the timers used 1/10 in high school and 1/100 in the city touraments.The 9.9 I ran in high school , my friend timed it at 9 4/5 .I also have a 1/100 stop watch and alot of Bob Hayes, Carl Lewis and Ben Johnson races.I,m ususlly within .20 to the automatic timer,sometimes within .04. So yes automatic timing is prefered I still don't have a problem with handtiming.Thats
what I thought you orginially meant about Williams was the handtiming and not at a sanctioned event, which I have no problem with. The traveling cicrus act,if true,with payoffs, short sloping tracks and fast starts,
I do have problems with.Of course, I don't know if Williams was one of the more legit Pros in his era.If his times 4x9-1/5/100y.;3x9.0/100y.;9-4/5/100m.; are even close to being correct( take off some for the handtiming)given his era he would be considered one of the greatest if not the greatest sprinter of alltime.If he really ran all those races with times close to those stated he was also a very consistant runner unlike Crockett and Mctear the other 9/100y coholders.


I hope at least some of you find this interesting or entertaining even though I'm sure none of you believe it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Chief Pontificator


Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Fri May 09, 2003 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My main question would be when was all the above written? If I'm not mistaken, the book was published in 1970, meaning 60+ years after the bulk of those events took place. Even if everything was accurately timed, with no governing body, and likely no real record keeping, in place, that's a lot of time for folklore to take on a life of its own.

Dan
_________________
I get injured so you don't have to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jeffh
Water Boy
Water Boy


Joined: 14 Apr 2002
Posts: 47
Location: NC

PostPosted: Fri May 09, 2003 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dan wrote:
My main question would be when was all the above written? If I'm not mistaken, the book was published in 1970, meaning 60+ years after the bulk of those events took place. Even if everything was accurately timed, with no governing body, and likely no real record keeping, in place, that's a lot of time for folklore to take on a life of its own.

Dan



Its likely BS, because his times are as fast as those being run today.The guy ran a sub 10- 100 Meters.When was that accomplished with handtiming, I think Hayes did in 64/tokyo.

Willoughby was alive when Williams was running.So its not some guy writing about some event 60 years after the fact that wasn't even alive during the event.I think he became interesting in weightlifting in the 1915(give or take )and won the AAU championship in ther 1920s.His first published articles on human performance were in the 1920's.I know he wrote a piece"How Much Faster Can Sprinters Travel" in 1931.The book by no means is about T&F events alone.It has weightlifting,miscellaneous feats of strength.Ice skating,boxing,etc.

Willoughby was supposely a world authority on athletic performance.He was a statistician and historian on sports in general.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Run-Down Forums Forum Index -> Sprint Central All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group