James Jeffries as an athlete.

His 100 yard time equates to an 11.7 not 10.7 time.

Seriously, I am not understanding you at all.

 

It’s foolish to say it’s sad when one, based on other data for comparison, logic and good old common sense duly deduces and identifies obvious points of exaggeration.

And when the highlighting of that point of exaggeration is refuted by someone, it is again not sad to further identify the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of anyone cherry picking claims to suit themselves.

Also, let’s basically repeat several questions and deductions already posited and neatly packaged in a post just prior.

And the ultimate answer provided, yet again, equated to the most logical and common sense conclusion without taking the most implausible scenic route to get there.

 

I think you meant to type the word "not" before understanding.
Did you not state a particular large athlete was amazing to run a 10.7 meters?
And other large non-sprinters go faster...
Alright fuhgettibout my question IF Jeffries was not going all out, would averaging 11.2 for *yards* be plausible if he left something in the tank...

I am more interested in why a man who was not a sprinter could not shave more than .3 off his time lifetime-if he trained specifically for sprints & lost redundant muscle mass...

Because I understand & read about some who are already sprinters & "lose" more time than that.
Although some think Bolt's sudden progress denoted PED usage...

Edit: I noted a post of basically undecipherable negative generalities that are fruitless to attempt to unpack, but that has nothing to do with you Seamus.

 

Lol! Welcome to my world.

 

Lol. Absolutely clueless. Good luck with that!

 

Petty, pot-shotting mockery when there is no way to counter points substantively is juvenile.
For the question at hand, Jeffries was an excellent athlete.
Unusual speed for his size & overall agility, at a muscular weight that is actually modern-for his height & moderate body fat, that weight indicates a lot of strength-& many who reach his size either look overly pumped up, use PEDs-or both.

It seems he relied on his ability to absorb punishment more than he needed to.
I do wonder if he did not so outsize most guys...Would he have the skills to put away top fighters from later eras?

 

Points were countered sufficiently. Lack of comprehension, feigned or real, is a major impediment to any discussion. Poor expression doesn’t help either.

 

I have ran intervals all my life, still do! If only doing 3/4 flat out 100/200's I personally find my second effort is usually the fastest. There is no way the last of ten could be the fastest if they were all flat out. It may be possible if the runner was holding back, trying to run all 10 as close together as possible as in a speed-endurance session.
The reason that a 10m run-in is better than a shorter one is simple, top speed is reached at around 40-60 meters and then drops marginally after that, but basically the runner gets to drop the slowest 10m segment which is much slower than the final 10m if I'm making sense.
A poster stated "While in say a marathon even the percentage folks could shave off their time would almost exceed that-most could only do it at a walking pace & could get down to maybe low 3 hours..." and I took that to mean that a person could walk a marathon close to three hours, sorry if I misconstrued the meaning.

 

What was that tale of of Jim carrying a deer carcass on his shoulder for many miles?

 

I was that poster, & check it out [url]here[/url]: the marathon distance is not a traditional one for them, the 50 K is, which is longer: the best guy Andrey Perlov did a PB 3:37:41, translating to walking through the/a 26.2 mile distance in under 3:05.
That is under a 6:50 minute a mile pace, obviously needing to use the dynamic/swinging/funny looking race walking techniques.
That speed is extraordinary: a small percentage of regular people couldd even RUN a 5K (3.1) miles at that pace!!
When I jogged much slower than that for a Halloween run with family again, it took about 3 days for my legs to lose soreness.
It is amazing what the body can do; but also how specific adaptations can be.
Just walking a good amount & being pretty strong in moving weight with my legs (no like our "Rules"/RMII of course) conferred little muscular endurance.
While my Sister, although with somewhat more BF%, through jogging regularly for a while beats me!

Matt re-reading what you said, I think you meant that with a bit longer running start you build up more speed, & the "dropping" of the slowest 10M equates to not having to measure the slowest, ramping up/drive portion of the race?
That makes perfect sense.
But I was speaking about a relay-& specifically Hayes Epic run in the Tokyo Olympiad.
That is different, because I believed/assumed all the individual times are measured from when the baton is RECEIVED in the passing zone-not the end of the zone-looking it up I get different answers based upon the source & distance.
Once around the track/400M is easy to start at the finish line!
But the goal in a 100M is to have the runners go longer or shorter based up their predicted & usual SPEED.
So the 3rd leg, th slowest one, normally takes & hands the baton off later & earlier, respectively.

Sure a shorter run-in both means you build less momentum...And only if the run/split is timed from handoff, it is a slightly longer run.
Some sources say it is timed in the middle of the zone, but what sense would that make-the guy might not even HAVE the baton yet.
Shed some light here please.

Yes of course on the 10 100 yard question (although Jeffries said the last was tied for his best, still impossible...) Unless, again & as you volunteer, he was saving something/not going flat out.
Then the question becomes could Jeffries have run a not more than late 9s 100 YARD dash to make that plausible.
It is hard to know, it would mean he could at least break 11 seconds in 100M...Some big guys certainly can do that & lower.
But unless there are extenuating circumstances like a run-in, it is more difficult without a good-or any-track, ior track shoes, OR starting blocks.
Weigh in please, but it seems that for an untrained large person, it would be a task at the edge of credibility.

It is funny that someone (else) who barely knows about this stuff, nor ran track, gives unsupported statements-zero specifics-that things were explained enough. He did no such thing.
There is again no ability to show anything that was supposedly explained yet not comprehended.
And while unlike them I often try to credit them, as correct when possible, with a good faith effort when relevant....
Not only do I hear absolutely no evidence of my supposed "poor expression" (here comes another unearned crediting lol)...

Despite obvious intelligence, there are numerous passages where instead of say only typos, the grammar & syntax is mangled.
And intention has to be guessed at.
Although there are also plenty of clever jokes, puns, creativity...
The meaning can be so garbled as to be opaque in places.

 

I highlighted the poor expression and comprehension of the one and straight back he falsely claims poor writing on my part.

The one really needs to read himself - not good at all. No one has ever complained about not understanding me. And, their replies clearly indicate that I have been understood exactly as I intended to be understood. And I understand them likewise.

The one has had numerous issues being understood and understanding - but the one defers to a protective ego and uniformly suggests that the issues reside with the other parties. Not at all true.

Among many, we have a living breathing example right here of one’s poor expressions and comprehension.

As to never participating in athletics, why would one assume that? Exactly, no good reason. Ooh, so mean, so vicious. Lol.

A poster does not have to flag wave prior experience and achievements in order to advertise their capabilities to discuss these matters.

I ran 100m, 200m and 4 X 100 m relay (last leg runner) in HS. I also competed in long jump and high jump. I represented my school in all these events at various stages of high school - the mainstays were the 100, 200 and the relay.

Just when you think that perhaps it isn’t possible, the one comes out with assertions even more foolish than those he has previously submitted.

It will be interesting to see how their powers of communication with others progress from here, lol,

 

I have endlessly addressed supposed mistakes in expression & comprehension-although it usually is just general statements.
I could cut & paste so many passages that were garbled syntax &/or grammar, unknown intentions-people do not tend to ask about rambling expressive passages-especially what this has devolved into, since it is basically unread.

Avoidance is massive.
One of many examples is skirting direct challenges like the insanity of "nobody understands you & you understand nothing".
That would be laughable even without tons of easily verifiable, amicable, often detailed conversations over a decade.

Anyone speaking or worse thinking like this may be functional in daily life, but at least then became fully unhinged online.
Without reason.

So let me again not reply in unkind.
Nor not only not assume crazy facts or pathologies/histories-but assume at least honesty.
Even though I have no way to confirm anything...

This content is protected

Based upon the basic questions asked & what was said & not said, I could not tell.
But that may have in part been modesty, + I certainly am no expert at the events I did...
At first I was going to say I never said no "athletics" were indulged upon, but that was the wrong word-track & field must have been the intended words.

So hopefully there can be an armistice, & what can be discussed, apropos of this thread, is something like are those times possible for Jeffries 10X in rapid succession.
In my opinion not IF run at capacity.
But again if his real max run was ~ 1/2 second faster, then it is.
Whether what would be the equivalent of a 100 METER run in the late 10's is plausible for him, is certainly debateable.
Just in this thread multiple untrained large men have achieved this OR better-but to me it is near the limit of what is at all likely.

ALSO I wonder at the conclusion that a young, 236 lbs., jacked novice could only shave .3 seconds off their time:
In a lifetime.

Because first off, said NFL stud would need to lose at least near, & maybe clearly over, 30 lbs. of (for such specialized sprinting) redundant muscle to maximize abilities.
That in itself would take off some time.
Then there are all the inefficiencies indicated in every phase but lift off, lol!
Maybe there is something about that particular athlete where he would not gain more...But it has not been shown.

And when I see others making more gains-even when starting as a sprinter, & not having the advantage of needing to optimize weight, which should inevitably cut some time off the clock...
I do not know why it could not be done.

Bolt as the only top sprinter never to test positive is viewed with suspicion.
Progress in the sprints was a big reason: but that is different.
An already elite sprinter, not just getting pro training.
And it was within a single season.

Which begs the question too: unless we are stating that this guy stay clean-when so many do not-using PEDs (as much as I am opposed to them) is something that would also better a time.

I would really welcome & appreciate any informed speculation from someone who ran sprints competitively.
Certainly the 100, 200, anchor relay event: like Bolt.

 

The hypocrisy of one’s own pathologising (most recent examples “the insanity of..” and “unhinged”, also throwing in their 2c worth otherwise, then falsely narrating themselves as not replying “in kind”…..again, one is a mass of pretentious self contradictions.

Attempting to equivocate on and/or ignore the absolutely finite “not understanding you at all” is preposterous and very much in denial. And it’s certainly not the first time one has received such replies.

I’ve also often read one completely mis comprehend otherwise simple points made to them by other posters. There have also been instances of one not reading properly outright.
All this, lending much to the corruption of threads otherwise comprised of concise and understood exchanges between other members.

Re their rants, one has also been told multiple times “no one is going to read that”. One has also been told on a number of occasions “I didn’t read that” - only for one to enter into another rant about not being respected etc. - it’s really quite abnormal.

The yellow highlighting is nigh impossible to read - and I didn’t strain in an attempt to read same. Is one somehow not aware of this?

Like I said, interesting to see how the communication with others progresses from here on in. That should be easily understood.

 

I don't disagree. However, fighters in Jeff's day often started slow to conserve energy. I doubt Jeff ever faced a genuine fast starter like a young Mike Tyson whose speed and power would overwhelm Jeff. Even in a 25 round fight, i would favour Tyson to win in 5 reounds.

I think Jeff was great for his era but i do wonder how his style would hold up vs great combination punchers like Louis and Tyson. Or against sluggers like Foreman. I am not sure he would last long enough to take advantage of the 25 round advantage.

 

relay splits are timed from centre line ie 100, 200, 300 and finish.