James Jeffries as an athlete.

"I ran the 100 yards a thousand times in less than 11 seconds. And one morning, just to try myself out, I ran ten dashes of 100 yards each — all run within a total elapsed time , of no more than 15 minutes — in the average time of 10 2-5sec. Dewitt Van Court, who is still alive, and who witnessed the performance, will verify that. The oddest part of it all was that I ran the final sprint that day in 10 1-5th seconds, and that one, mind you, came after I had run nine others in rapid succession...
No one ever timed my running until I was in training to fight Boh Fitzsimmons. Then Billy Delaney and a crowd from my camp measured off 100 yards. I ran it in 10 3-5th seconds. They couldn't quite believe what had happened because I was weighing around 225 then — and
that's a lot of bulk for a sprinter. So they remeasured, verified the distance and I ran the next 100, in 10 1-5. 'I can run pretty nearly all day at that clip,' I grinned at the fellows. 'Well,' said Delaney, 'here's where you get your chance. You'll run lOO yards,walk back, to the starting, line, run it again and repeat ten times. We'll see if you are kidding us.' That was the day when I made the ten sprints in an average time of 10 2-5ths.
I was able to stand flat on the floor, then leap upward, kick a ceiling eight feet high with my toes and land on my feet."
That's the relevant text of the 1927 article in Trove. There is nothing there to suggest how high Jeffries could go in a high jump. The record for the 100 yards back then was under 10 seconds and the Olympic results were decieving. Only 13/14 countries took part, the USA the only non-European entry. In general the top athletes did not attend. Burke, who won the 100, used a "controversial" start position, crouching with a mound of earth behind his feet!
I have ran in the old Olympic stadium and it would heve been conducive to decent sprinting back in the day. If Jeffries ran as he claimed, timed correctly, and measured accurately he was reasonably near the best around and with specific training, would get closer. IMO, however, it's a big IF! I do agree that track surface( a biggey) shoes, wind direction, opposition, starting blocks would all be major issues. Andre DeGrasse failed to match Jesse Ownes times when running in similar conditions, so aside from the unmentionables, humans havent got that much faster, just far more numerous, better trained and better oppertunities.

 

“I can run pretty nearly all day at that clip”.

If the boasts weren’t doubtful already, that finishing statement is really pushing the credibility in its own right as well as, by association, all the claims preceding it.

 

But Owens times were far, far, far faster than Jeffries, completely different universe. And Degrasse was coming off injury and I believe running in sweats. Not that I don't think Owens would be world class in any era.

 

Owens was much faster, but you went too far with the "fars".
Even with the limited technology of the day, Owens ran on a track.
With starting blocks.
With track shoes.
With competition.
Numerous races where he was trying his absolute best, unlike Jeffries.

And Jeffries was not training for or even advised on sprinting techniques, as far as we know.
I agree it is an "if" how accurate the timing was.
And we can take the "run that nigh all day" statement as hyperbole-but I think Jeffries would notb expect that to be taken literally, so it does not impeach his other statements-which still could be overstatements.
But I believe that Jeffries was better than a "good" natural athlete.
IF he could actually kick an 8 foot ceiling from a standing position (particularly when he may have only been 6' flat)...That is extraordinary.
At just shy of 6', I recall taking several steps to just jump up & bang my HEAD against the ceiling of my international dorm in college.
Unlike someone with great hops the momentum I had at the top caused no significant risk to my braiaiains.

Sweatpants would not be a serious incursion in efficiency compared to the cumulative handicaps of the day.
Now if Degrasse was subpar due to recovery from injury, that could make the results suspect.
The question is was his condition really causing him to run more like Neil DeGrasse...Tyson.

 

Owens was timed by real officials. Jeffries was timed by his homies.

Even taking that at face value, the difference between 11.7 and 10.3 is lightyears. 11.7 gets you nowhere. I did that in 8th grade. 10.3 gets you noticed on a national level, or at least got you noticed in the 80's/early 90's when I competed.

 

Thanks with the whole quote I see that he claimed to also have matched his best that day in his final run.
I did track & field for a couple Junior H.S. years.
Let's assess credibility: if he was truly doing each run at maximum capacity, AND having a break of not much over a minute between runs/while walking back to the starting line...
Is it

This content is protected

that people could match their very best for the day on their 10th run? I really do not know, but it sounds unlikely.

Seamus described Degrass as in sweat pants-no big deal-but also recovering from injuy-bit deal.
His best 100 Meter was 10.89. Owens, 10.3.
Now I would not expect any single day, especially without competition, to equal his best.
But assuming he was not barely over 1.3-like if he was at 10.5...
AND if not impeded by injury-a big IF....

I might guesstimate that the difference in track conditions, type of starting blocks, & shoes could take off almost what separated them: .61 of a second.
But whatever it is, it would be more with NO starting blocks.

 

But I just checked with this [url]conversion chart[/url] of times: between 10 yards & 100 meters.
First I suspected you were erroneously using his averaged times, not his best-although they were not far apart.
According to the instantaneous, presumably infallible calculator, a 10.2 100 yard spring = an 11.15 100 meters!
That is

This content is protected

from an 11.7!
We also know at an informal glance that my/that or any conversion charts numbers are correct because since the DISTANCE difference between the races is clearly under 10%...
The TIMES must be less than that too!
What initial time did you use to get an 11.7-& what conversion system did you use?

Seamus I hope you have not stopped responding to me because in this instance I am politely differing with you.
I have seen some fragile egos threatened with mere questioning to parse out the truth.
But I assume a proud (& secure) Kulak is above that. ;-)
EDIT: I see that when composing this you finally replied to a note of mine here, thank you!

Last but not least, to use the hypocritical tagline of a certain propagandizing network to good effect, it is never "fair & balanced" to use a caution about inaccuracy due to very possible flaws in hand timing...
Then use NO compensation or adjustment for the FOR SURE slowing factors of...
NO track.
Normal clothes.
No track shoes or cleats.
No starting blocks.
No competition.
Minimal times measured (like no pitcher is likely to throw his best fastball ever if only getting a few measurements on a couple of occasions, unlike every start for years).

So in summary, you need to use 11.15 as Jeffries conversion figure.
You can then introduce the likelihood of being off by nearly a 1/4 second!
But you also MUST admit he would more than make up for that advantage-by an unknown amount-under the same

This content is protected

that anyone in modern track & field is timed at.

Then admit that whatever figure you arrive at, if he or anyone had any training in it he/they would do better.
Just hi size-if he competed he would lose weight, some muscle, because while being strong is helpful, he must have had some redunant slowing size, using the height & weight ratios of every championship sprinter!
None on any serious level were 6' & 225 lbs., correct?

 

The article states his average time was 10.4 which given that his homies were not legit officials is the most reliable measure to take to smooth out their errors (again they were his homies and this is Jeff's story, both of which already disqualify their legitimacy). 10.4 times 1.1 conversion is 11.44, add the .24 conversion from Hand time to auto time and you get a pedestrian 11.68. And again, if he wanted a legit time, a real time, he only needed to jump into an AAU event, which they had plenty even back in 1900.

For a little background, I was a middling sprinter/jumper but good enough to be a HS All American, got a paltry D1 scholarship and went 10.7 in the 100 even though that wasn't my event. Been following the sport fairly religiously since the early 80's.

And I've heard a lot of dudes talk about how fast they used to be. The story goes, the older I get the faster I used to be. I'm not taking Jeffries word at all in 1927. And even if legit, I'm not taking the timing skills of his homies. And if all that was legit, it is still not a good very time. Jim Thorpe was 6-1, weighed 210, had zero track training also, and ran an 11.2, timed by real officials, in pouring rain, wearing shoes he found in a trash can. He could also excel in 9 other track events and several other sports. That was an athlete.

 

OK man this is an interesting discussion!

I'll start by saying that Jim Thorpe, who I discovered when given a big as a little kid, was not just an "athlete"...
He was possibly the greatest in Human History up to that point.
And given the same conditions & training opportunities as followed him, maybe he could have become the best ever at the 15 events he specialized in... And excelled at the pro sports he played in any era, football & baseball.

So your comparison is like usihg Michael Jordan to show that say Earl "The Goat" Manigault was not a great athlete.
Except Jeffries showed a greater range of abilities.
But mainly using a GOAT sport athlete IN a sport another barely dabbled in does not show the latter was not a superb athlete.

Trivial point: Thorpe was usually just over 200 lbs.
Jeffries, was a bit shorter, heavier, had more muscle-& would lose weight-ESPECIALLY since sprinters were lighter then-if he ever tried to compete.

But I am afraid you have double counted in your computations.
It is very fair to use a standard NFL .2 seconds, OR the .24 often used.
It is not reasonable to assume ON TOP of that lies or bias that go beyond that because they were close to the boxer.

And you are still showhow using his average time of 10 closely spaced 100 meters as his best!
How on earth can you justify this?
You never use any rapid fire set of 10 sprints for your or any modern guys times.
You always use their BEST times.
Anyway Jeffries has not had tons of measures or any competition for his best-of course you gotta use his best time!

Look I am saying we cannot confirm the original story.
But at least IF it is true, an 11.15 is the conversion...
To be fair to you, add .24 & you have an 11.39 for the hand timing.

But if you want to be remotely realistic & fair, you must ALWAYS add & stress that this was under much inferior conditions.
No track shoes.
No TRACK.
Street clothes.
No starting blocks.
No training.

So you surely must see (if I may call you...) that under neutral, modern traditions, Jeffries would likely have run, untrained,

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Sorry, I'm dog tired but don't want you to think I'm ignoring you because you are discussing in good faith.

10.4 was his average in that article. The conversion between 100 yards and 100 meters, at that relatively pedestrian speed, is generally considered about 1.1. So, 10.4 times 1.1 is 11.44. Then, if you want to compare to modern athletes, add .24 which has been the standard IAAF hand-time to FAT conversion for 40 years, not .2, and you get 11.68.

11.68 won't get you on varsity on any middling high school track program in existence.

No track shoes? Again, Deion Sanders went 10.2 FAT in a pair of clunky basketball sneakers. For sprinting, there's nothing exceptional about modern spikes. They are socks with spikes. Carbon fiber distance shoes are another story.

No track? He doesn't tell us where he is running or on what surface. For all we know, he could be running down a slight slope, or a steep slope. Again, there is no "there" there with his story. It's complete fabrication. If he was that fast and wanted to prove it, he should have entered a meet. There were plenty of them in his day in California.

No starting blocks? For all we know he was allowed a rolling start so as not to risk injury. Again, he doesn't tell us.

No training? I assume he was training for something. Deion Sanders wasn't training for track. Bob Hayes barely trained for track. Warrick Dunn barely put time into the sport. Bo Jackson. Tons of footballers. Fast is fast as some point. Deion Sanders wouldn't run an 11.7 underwater.

No grown ass man has potential to be a world class sprinter today who is running anything above 10.4 FAT at almost any weight and that is really stretching it. I should say 10.20.

Alright, night-night, sir.

 

Thanks for the effort Seamus!
Just respond here when refreshed, because you missed something. NO hurry.
Again you did not use his fastest times, but his average ones.
But you are using the best EVER for everyone else-guys who often made it a career or did it much more often.
So you must start by using his best time.

It is possible but not likely that he was going downhill, starting from a jog...Assuming that they got it up to .24 wrong due to hand timing is reasonable.
Assuming that he had large unstated advantages-or that is at all likely-is not.

EDIT: this entry seems to suggest that when comparing races from 1948-1964 at the top levels-averaging very many races individual years: DECLINED in these respective later years-1952, 1946, & 1960. In the Tokyo Olympics it appears to be almost negligible.
SOURCE: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_automatic_time[/url]

I do not understand how you can say a 10.4 or maybe 10.2 time could not get someone world class status with training-& maybe drugs.
You did not specify under what conditions that would be run.
And IF it is someone say somewhat overweight or heavily muscled...
With little experience...
Well while almost nobody is going to go under 10.5 seconds if they meet this description, but surely you see that if they DID, they could train & lose weight & might well be World Class?
That is not even taking PEDs into account.

Jeffries was training but not at all for sprinting.
Yes those guys were freakishly fast (unfamiliar with Dunn), & I dunno if Jeffries with modern conditions, & training, could ever approach that. But well under 11 seconds WITH losing weight? More than plausible.

I see your past training & interest in track & field.
Here is a discussion about the fastest 40 yard times, done at the NFL combines-I am guessing you agree with the logic that Bo Jackson did not run a 4.13...
And first they mention a man I became obsessed with appropos of his relay leg at the 1964 Tokyo Olympics (great groundbreaking techniqued movie made about it) -you know the "Bullet" I am getting at here.
After you read this, I wanna ask you IF you believe that leg might still be the fastest 100 M relay ever-or is compensating for overall conditions. I have mucho research about it-well Googling all I could find...

[url]https://www.quora.com/Who-is-the-fastest-player-in-NFL-history-Lets-say-its-an-all-time-race-40-yard-dash-every-player-is-at-his-peak-Who-is-in-the-field-and-who-wins[/url]

 

Well, it wasn’t like Fitz was built like my exwife, he was a small man.

 

and that's Research,

1st off, have access to such Documentation and
2cd as much of it as possible and
3rd, as many 'other' such Reports saying similar or the same thing, as many as possible...

You should expect nothing less from True Research, and IF the 'consensus' says it, that's it then and it happened.

 

DeGasse ran in spikes, similar to those from Ownes time.