Originally Posted by PowerPuncher
1. Sprinting is vital but increasing but using resitance training to increas strength/power is vital too. Plyometrics are good - long jump - not part of sprint training its its own event. Hurdes increase sprinting speed?
2. Yes but there have been advances in sprint training - this is fact. Thats why times decrease. You do realise the world record in 1912 was only 10.6 don't you?
3. You have no evidense to support the cinder track is slower, it just fits your argument. It probably is a little slower but not more than 0.1second and top sprinters transition from cinder to modern tracks prove this. If the modern tracks were so much faster world records would have been shattered over the transitional stage, which they were not.
1. Running fast while clearing obstacles....doesn't sound like it would hurt sprinting speed to me. Owens' methods were not so inferior if they included sprint-training (short and longer sprints, as modern sprinters do) and jump-training (long jump) but excluded weights. Weight training is a rather recent addition to sprint training--it helps, but most of the advances in speed were made before its arrival.
2. That was the amateur world record. Professionals (which is essentially what modern sprinters are) posted faster times. Seward did 9.4 seconds in the 100 yards, for instance.
3. The track and field histories I have read say that the tracks make a big difference. The track and field athletes I've spoken to agreed. There was even someone on this thread who had done track and field and said the same thing. I've run on grass (as some guys did even earlier, around Sullivan's time), on dirt, and on a modern track, and the modern track is easier.