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
Fastest 10m Split in the Near Future
Post new topic   Reply to topic

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Run-Down Forums Forum Index -> Sprint Central
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Conway
Olympic Medalist
Olympic Medalist


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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dan wrote:
Depends what you mean by limits... The fastest that can be run, or the fastest we're likely to see be run?

Dan


One and the same ... I think this time around the powers that be are forced to do something drastic regarding the whole drug issue ... And it appears that with "designer" drugs out there, there is no telling who has been on what and for how long ...

I don't want to throw any disparaging remarks at anyone ... But for the sake of conversation, I am starting to think that 10.00 is near the "clean" limit ... And I hate to use that phrase - "clean" ... But let's face it ... Up until less than 10 years ago it was near impossible to break 10.00 ... Only a handful had done it and only a few times ... Then suddenly the damn broke and everyone and his mamma goes sub 10 ... And we're talking pretty elite guys ... Guys like Borzov, Quarrie, Williams, Sanford, Calvin Smith ... Even Carl Lewis who was suspected by many and it was recently discovered had a positve test covered, had dificulty getting under the mark ...

I think with stronger drug laws and better testing 10.0x will become the time to shoot for with an occasional 9.9x (high)
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Chief Pontificator


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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But for the sake of conversation, I am starting to think that 10.00 is near the "clean" limit ...

That's the same figure that's been thrown around for quite a while now. It's a convenient "clean" barrier (i.e. 4:00 mile, 13:00 5k, 8:00 steeple), but it also seems to have some merit to it as just a time.

One concern I've got is that the current situation is almost a deterrant to running fast in the near future. We may see people running just fast enough to win, because dropping in huge performances will likely be seen as implicated cheating.

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
MiamiD J30
Water Boy
Water Boy


Joined: 06 Oct 2003
Posts: 31
Location: New York

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, thats something to think about. And its pretty odd, that they just shot down under 10.00s. Maybe there are undectable drugs people have been using and have never been caught.

As we go into the future, obviously our bodies are becoming a lot more muscular, and more phenoms are popping up by the years. As long as there are up and commers, I think 9.75s will be broken. After all the future is uncertain. And everyone can't be using drugs. They are cheating themselves. I think Greene had a clean 9.79s.

Jason
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Chief Pontificator


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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2003 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Maybe there are undectable drugs people have been using and have never been caught.

Almost definitely.

Quote:
As we go into the future, obviously our bodies are becoming a lot more muscular

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. The population as a whole is getting much less fit, so it stands to reason that it'll become less likely over time to have extremely athletic outliers. The same is happening in most Western countries, just to a lesser degree than in the US.

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
MiamiD J30
Water Boy
Water Boy


Joined: 06 Oct 2003
Posts: 31
Location: New York

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2003 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I definitely agree with you. But when I was saying our bodies are getting more muscular, I was talking about people who are in athletics, and the people that train hard. The stronger people get their potential to run faster and jump higher increases with their strength. I mean, the stronger your upper body gets, and the the stronger your legs get that faster you are able to run. As long as their body works in conjunction.

With MO Greene, I believe he has not ever taken steroids or drugs, because his number one goal was to train to be the worlds fastest. I mean it was pretty notcieable that, he didn't have one low time (9.79s), and shot up to many 9.95+s.

I believe that the stronger people get, the faster they get, as long as they have the right technique, they will be able to run faster.
I mean why doubt something, when it still is possible?
It shows that nowadays people are stronger and faster than they were 10 - 30 yrs ago. Why would it stop within the next 15 years? How?

If anyone can tell me these reasons, I will believe that what your saying is true. I still don't believe there is a very close limit to the already existing times. It just doesn't seem right, that all of a sudden people, will just stop progressing, and there will always be one record that won't be broken. Everyone knows, "Records are made to be broken".

Also, what I mean by progressing, I mean that I believe people will still progress, but that doesn't mean by a lot. It can only be a little. In fact to show the real records, they should take in account the wind-corrected time, and the altitude, and add or take off the necessary time.

Jason
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Chief Pontificator


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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2003 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
With MO Greene, I believe he has not ever taken steroids or drugs, because his number one goal was to train to be the worlds fastest.

I'm not pointing a finger at Mo, but that argument doesn't really hold water. He could still have that goal and take any number of supplements as a boost to get there.

Quote:
But when I was saying our bodies are getting more muscular, I was talking about people who are in athletics, and the people that train hard.

That's basically a fixed point in time. Each person has their potential scale, and over time those scales tend to build on each other and form the steady progression. Most of the top level sprinters we've grown used to over the past half decade are on the down side of their careers and cannot be expected to get any faster, so it's up to the next generation of sprinters to push forward. That's looking unlikely at this time.

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
MiamiD J30
Water Boy
Water Boy


Joined: 06 Oct 2003
Posts: 31
Location: New York

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2003 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very true. But what about Darrel Brown? What do any of you think about him?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Chief Pontificator


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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2003 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

He's obviously talented, but I haven't seen enough of him to really have an opinion.

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
pierrejean
Water Boy
Water Boy


Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Posts: 51
Location: Rennes (France)

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Conway wrote:
Given recent events, we may have to rexamine what the limits to speed truly are ?!?!?

Personally I had thought of 9.50 as the limit to the 100 ... However, I am now inclined to scale that back ...


Also, we have to rexamine what human beeing is! If a doped-sprinter is still a "human beeing", or if genetic doping will create some non-human or super-human.
A famous sport doctor (i think it's Mondenard not sure) was asked about WR limits in Athletics, he said that those human limits has been already depassed!

As far i'm concerned, top limit speed is basically limited by technique and strength, as well as track qualities. About technique at full speed, we have seen no new things since '80s, or maybe even since '70s. About strength, since late '80s but more likely during '90s, we have probably reached the limit for sprinters. Track qualities are limited by IAAF rules.
That's why I don't expect an improvement in top speed in the future.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Chief Pontificator


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

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
About technique at full speed, we have seen no new things since '80s, or maybe even since '70s.

I don't necessarily agree with that. Charlie Francis placed a heavy emphasis on turnover speed, creating a new protypical sprinter's build in the process. John Smith took the ball and ran with it, and the "clawing" footstrike pattern (negative foot speed being the catch phrase) became the big thing in the mid to late 90's.

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
pierrejean
Water Boy
Water Boy


Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Posts: 51
Location: Rennes (France)

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dan wrote:
Quote:
About technique at full speed, we have seen no new things since '80s, or maybe even since '70s.

I don't necessarily agree with that. Charlie Francis placed a heavy emphasis on turnover speed, creating a new protypical sprinter's build in the process. John Smith took the ball and ran with it, and the "clawing" footstrike pattern (negative foot speed being the catch phrase) became the big thing in the mid to late 90's.

Dan


I agree with what you say, but when i wrote "maybe even '70s" i was thinking about Don Quarrie and his "clawing footstrike pattern", which he was one of the first to achieve consienciously, regarding to his warm-up exercises in Münich 1972 Games reported by Fernand Urtebise.
Jacques Piasenta back in 1975 wrote an article about "clawing" novating technique of Guy Drut, beeing the key in the difference in his results with his opponents.
Smith's ideas about biomechanics and especially negative foot speed comes from Ralph Mann studies led in the USA elite project in early '80s.
I observed many common points in Flo-Jo's technique and in Maurice Greene's, that's why i wouldn't give Smith the credit of novating technique for full speed phase, with all respect due of course for his coaching success in sprints.


Concerning Ralph Mann, i have some very interesting articles about his researches, but i'd like to read at last this one:
"MANN, R. Elite athlete project. Sprints. USA/GDR meets - 1983. Technical report #10. Unpublished report for the Athletics Congress and the U.S. Olympic Committee, Colorado Springs, 1984."
I have tried to contact the author in vain, so can someone has this report?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Conway
Olympic Medalist
Olympic Medalist


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

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MiamiD J30 wrote:
Wow, thats something to think about. And its pretty odd, that they just shot down under 10.00s. Maybe there are undectable drugs people have been using and have never been caught.

As we go into the future, obviously our bodies are becoming a lot more muscular, and more phenoms are popping up by the years. As long as there are up and commers, I think 9.75s will be broken. After all the future is uncertain. And everyone can't be using drugs. They are cheating themselves. I think Greene had a clean 9.79s.

Jason


Actually everything points to society getting heavier and fatter, not more muscular ... Just something to think about ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Conway
Olympic Medalist
Olympic Medalist


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

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MiamiD J30 wrote:
With MO Greene, I believe he has not ever taken steroids or drugs, because his number one goal was to train to be the worlds fastest. I mean it was pretty notcieable that, he didn't have one low time (9.79s), and shot up to many 9.95+s.

I believe that the stronger people get, the faster they get, as long as they have the right technique, they will be able to run faster.
I mean why doubt something, when it still is possible?
It shows that nowadays people are stronger and faster than they were 10 - 30 yrs ago. Why would it stop within the next 15 years? How?

Jason


I'm as big a Mo Greene fan as there has been ... Having said that I've also seen every world class sprinter up close and live since the late 60's (was a kid then) ... And while I am a huge Mo fan, I can tell you that Mo (or Ato or any of a number of sprinters) are/were no naturally stronger than say James Sanford, Clancy Edwards, Steve Williams, Millard Hampton, Houston McTear, James Mallard or a dozen others I could name off the top of my head ... As a matter of fact I would list Sanford, Edwards and McTear among the most natually strong sprinters in history ... Most of today's sprinters are slightly shorter and lighter than many sprinters in the era of say the 60's through 80's ... Sprinters started getting slightly shorter and lighter mid 80's or so ... But then size has gone in cycles every 15 to 20 years or so over time ... And if you look at the high school lists as a measure of history for young sprinters , young sprinters today are no faster than those over 30 years ago !!! So I would have to disagree that guys are just getting stronger and faster ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Conway
Olympic Medalist
Olympic Medalist


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

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MiamiD J30 wrote:
Very true. But what about Darrel Brown? What do any of you think about him?


Here are the top 4 from the all time high school 100 meter list ... I use them as they were all very fast (about in Brown's league excpet for his extraodinary Worlds) ... And they span different decades ...

10.13 .................... Derrick Florence (Ball, Galveston, Tx) 86
10.15 ............................... Henry Neal (Greenville, Tx) 90
10.16 ................................ Houston McTear (Baker, Fl) 76
10.18 ........................ Roy Martin (Roosevelt, Dallas, Tx) 85

Note that while all continued to compete after high school, non got appreciably faster ... First of all note what I said in my previous post about kids not getting any faster over the past 30 years ... Each yearly list if I could post them all would reflect the same as this short list ... More importantly note that typically those at the top of the chain when young are NOT those at the top of the chain later on ...

I like Brown a lot ... Showed lots of savvy and coolness at Worlds ... But the odds are against him becoming a super star of the sport ... The stars have typically been those in the 10.35 - 10.50 range in high school ... The faster kids have typically been pretty near developed by 18 / 19 ... Those slightly slower have had more room to improve and grow ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Conway
Olympic Medalist
Olympic Medalist


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

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regarding technique changes, John Smith took some things that others had used and put them together successfully for those "built for it" ... I think you and I had a discussion on this before Dan ... Some of the shorter sprinters of the 60's (Greene, Pender are the first that come to mind) were "clawers" ... I had the privaledge of going to a camp where Pender was the sprint coach and it was something he was totally in to (and something I had great difficulty with idolizing and trying to emulate Steve Williams) ... Valeri Borzov had a very defined drive phase ... Quarrie was a clawer who tended to open up late race - hence his success over 200 ... Smith took these things and applied them to his short sprinters - note his long sprinters have run totally diffferently ... His technique, however seems to be only suited to those around 5'8 to 5'10 with great upper body strength and strong calfs ...

I don't think there is much that can be done technically ... The only true technical innovation that I can think of is Ben Johnson's start ... THAT was innovative and different and probably dropped his time close to .1 - IMO ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
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, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7

 
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