Marciano Harder Hitter than Lennox Lewis

Yes but you can get dq from a race now for reacting to quickly, linford christie was dq'ed from a race for a false start when he had just reacted to quickly for a machine to judge, so in some instances technology hinders the fastest time. Owens might have been able to start 0.2 seconds quicker due to them not being able to judge reaction times, tecnology improves but it also makes things more difficult.

 

Jesse Owens is a bit of a hype job. The fastest Owens ever ran 100m was 10.2 - this wasnt even that amazing in 1936 many runners had been running 10.3s regular in the 30s. His record wasnt broken for a few years but guess why - WW2 - there were little races during this time but despite this the record was equalled in 1941. Back then there wasn't digital timing so it was only recorded to 1/10th of a second so it was harder to break records.

Jesse Owens would be allot faster with modern training, supplements, nutrition faster tracks, starting blocks, etc etc

I think the study is bogus and subjective. Its impossible to say what the difference in speed is from running on modern tracks to old cinder tracks

Jesse Owens would be 4-5 metres behind Asafa Powell - this is a LONG way in a 100m race and wouldn't mean he wouldnt make the semi-finals in the olympics today.

Owens is 5 inches shorter, has shorter legs, has a higher bodyfat percentage, isnt as explosive or powerful as Asafa Powell

Again with modern training and supplements he would be better but in his current form. But today many teenagers run faster than Owens.

 

Asafa powell is the fastes man ever and is regarded as the best pure runner, he has faltered in a few championships but his build, height and technique are regarded as prefect for running fast times.

 

But his record was equaled in 1941 and beaten on a cinder track in '56

Actually the synthetic tracks were changed because cynder tracks would turn into mud pits in the rain. The track speeds the race up a bit but were talking 0.1 second tops.

Putting Owens in perspective he ran 20.7 for the 200m which is 1 1/2 seconds slower than the world record - SLOWWW

SPRINTING AND HEIGHT

Asafa Powell: 6'3
Carl lewis: 6'2
Linford Christie: 6'3

Maurice Greene was 5'10 but had hugely muscular legs and torso making him a much more explosive athlete.

 

10.2 was VERY fast for the 1930's. Given the fact it was run on a dirt track in primitive apparel by an athlete with primitive coaching is all the more amazing.

Height is not important in 100 meters racing. In fact, it seems to be a detriment as there are only two really world class 100 meter guys at 6-4. Calvin Smith, Leroy Burrell, Pietro Mennea... et al. There have been many world record holders under 6 feet.

I can only name half a dozen teenagers in the past decade who have run faster than Owens and they have done so with the incredible benefits of modern facilities and training. I can't explain the difference a good modern track makes in your times. I went from a podunk college where I was clocking 10.9's and high 10.8's to a track at Sacromento where I broke 10.6 in the same season.

 

It is not about being too tall, would you disagree that 6'3 asafa powell is the perfect build for running fast times, johnson etc all seem to think this so i doubt he's wrong.

 

No but guys like micheal johnson etc say these things when watching him run, and i am inclined to listen to a guy like johnson.

 

OK, we are getting way off the pertinent topic, but the fact remains that in the modern era, men from 5-8 to 6-3 have held the 100 meter record. Thus, given the results of this highly competitive era, height within reason is not very important to being the best short sprinter in the world.

More to the point, the talent level of the very cream of the crop of short sprinters has not- in my opinion- increased over the last 50 years. It is certainly deeper, but top three or four in the world would probably be the same. Hell, I believe it was Charlie Francis, a much more heralded authority on coaching the sprints than Michael Johnson, said in an SI interview that given today's benefits, Bobby Morrow of the 1950's would be going 9.7.

Back to point, I do not believe the boxers of today are better talents per se, but the heavyweights are definitely bigger and generally stronger given the increased reliance on weight training and the greater recruitment of bigger athletes.

And by the way, US men are for the first time in recorded times, getting SHORTER over the past decade, whilst those of other countries have increased their height. As Elvis would say, that's a fact, jack.

 

1) Ben Johnson (9.79 for 100 metres, last 10 metres with 1 arm held aloft) and Michael Johnson (19.32 for 200 metres, the greatest world record in athletics) are both under 6 foot.

As usual your point about 'bigger is better' is wrong. Shame I have to point this out every day on ESB, it must be getting tedious for a lot of the other posters.

2) Faster tracks and starting blocks would indeed make Owens times quicker, but this does not support your argument, it supports Old Fogeys.

3) "Jesse Owens is a bit of a hype job":yikes He is arguably the greatest athlete to have graced the planet. His combination of speed and explosiveness matched only by Carl Lewis. His 8.13m long jump world record lasted a quarter of a century, despite his run up being on cinders.

I will finish up by picking on one mistaken detail in Old Fogey's otherwise excellent post - hand times actually make the sprinters appear faster, rather than slower, than they actually are...

 

Ben steroids johson with what time was that???
Also i don't think some of you know what bigger means, you need to learn what the word means before you keep going on about it. Bigger doesn't mean taller it isn't the same thing, bigger means you have more physical mass, taller means you have more height.
If you are as tall and as lean as asafa powell and don't take steroids ala justin gatlin and have there talent for sprinting you are going to be faster than a guy of 5'8. If you have longer legs you have to make less strides on a track so therefore if your technique and power are as good as a shorter athlete you will beat them.

 

1. Firstly your blatantly wrong again. Ben Johnson cheated BIG TIME his times dont even count (he was not sub 10 without cheating) and Michael Johnson was not a 100m sprinter, he admitted he couldnt compete at 100m. At any rate its shown that smaller sprinters need to have muscle to generate speed. But Johnson was far far more muscular than Owens, he squated with 600lbs for reps to the ground, which is a collasal weight for such a sized man. Bens legs and muscularity were HUGE for a conditioned sprinter. And Owens is shorter than both men

2. Yes I pointed that out ******, I have balanced posts unlike some people. It doesn't make 10.2=9.7, it makes 10.2=10.1

The introduction of new tracks and blocks did not make world records fall by 5% as some of you laughable seem to be suggesting

3. Yes he is, 4 other athetes had ran 10.3 the same decade. And many many athletes on cinder tracks ran the same or beat his 100m times.