Fastest White Man (Charlie's Space)

[Alpha Male]

"As Jaxvid wrote on page one of this topic, I agree that west African blacks
for any of a number or mix of reasons seem to have superior sprinting
skills over the short sprints.


We have to, however, define what constitutes short sprints. Is it 100 meters or 20 meters? How about 30 or 40 meters? There's evidence - NFL combine statisticspreviously discussed on this site - that indicate white superiority at 10, 20, and 30 meters bursts - pure acceleration. If any of those distances, as opposed to the 100-meter, were the collective agreement for competition at the Olympics, more whites would compete in the "short" sprints and win. It is only during the speed endurance phase of the 100-meter that whites show inferiority to blacks - not during the acceleration where whites have the advantage.Edited by: Alpha Male

 

[Observer]

"As Jaxvid wrote on page one of this topic, I agree that west African blacks for any of a number or mix of reasons seem to have superior sprinting skills over the short sprints.


&lt;SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-: EN-US; mso-fareast-: EN-US; mso-bidi-: AR-SA"&gt;We have to, however, define what constitutes short sprints.  Is it 100 meters or 20 meters?  How about 30 or 40 meters?  There's evidence - NFL combine statistics previously discussed on this site - that indicate white superiority at 10, 20, and 30 meters bursts - pure acceleration.  If any of those distances, as opposed to the 100-meter, were the collective agreement for competition at the Olympics, more whites would compete in the "short" sprints and win.  It is only during the speed endurance phase of the 100-meter that whites show inferiority to blacks - not during the acceleration where whites have the advantage.</font> &lt;/SPAN&gt;

... and then also at the slightly longer "endurance speed" distances the whites again do well (example: 4 out of 5 of the sub 44s splits in the Olympics 4x400 were by whites).

 

[waterbed]

it is not that whites decelerate more I think but I think the topspeed makes the differnce at the end of a 100 meter becuase if you decelerate the same and your top speed is 0.5 m/s slower it is still 0.5 M/S that you run slower then the 0.5 M/S faster top speed guy.

 

[charlie180]

Alpha Male,</span>

Rather than a website I'd suggest a book on the subject, Needham's book on Civilisation in China covers this. Anyone can post a website, but writing a book requires at least some knowledge of the subject. I know who I'd give more credence to.

You're either a self-loathing white or worse - one of the myriad jealous non-whites that adhere to revisionist history.

Naturally, if I am not not claiming white superiority over the other races, as well as the fact that a white man invented everything from fire to cloning, I must be self loathing. I am not brow beaten by popular consensus, nor am I swayed by propaganda or misinformation. I make my mind up based on facts.

Revisionism works both ways.

I believe I have ably demonstrated positive attributes among white people merely by commenting here.

Back to the topic...

albinosprint</span> - There isn't that much difference between a cinder track and a modern one, certainly not .2 or .3 seconds. Bob Hayes won the 1964 Olympic final on a cinder track in 10 flat. Four years later in 68, Jim Hines ran 9.95s on a modern track, a difference on 0.05s. Except that the 68 final was 2000m above sea level in Mexico City, which more than likely accounted for the fast time; the 200m and 400m records were also broken. The 100m record stood for 15 years, even though everyone was running on modern tracks after that.

The 200m record stood for 11 years, until Pietro Mennea broke it, in Mexico City! If cinder tracks made that much of a difference the WR would have been smashed in 68, and the times would have been .2 - .3 quicker after that. They weren't. No one got near Hines time for years and only Quarrie got close to Tommie Smith's time in the 200m, and again that was at altitude. All this despite the modern tracks.

what is your reasoning for blacks getting a bit faster every year, but whites have been maxed out since the 60's?

Whites have peaked. This is clear from the amount of mentions that Armin Hary gets on this site. I am sure that I could return here in 5, 10 even 50 years time and you'd all still be saying that a sub 10s sprinter is just around the corner, and wishing Armin Hary was still running today. The man was a cheat and a fraudster, he was kicked of the German team for fiddling his expenses and was convicted of defrauding the church of millions.

mastermulti</span> - Shame about the Australians and the funding, realistically they were the only sprinters with any real chance. As I have said before though, Eastern Europe in particular is full of white sprinters, the USSR had millions of men to choose from and the funding but still couldn't find a sub 10s sprinter. The fact that a white sprinter has come so close is amazing.

10s is a magic gate. It means that a white sprinter would have to have an average speed of more than 10m/s, which none has even come close to. Taking the start into account they'd need a top speed of about 12m/s and need to sustain that, or there abouts, for 80m!

As I said, a physical impossibility.
Edited by: charlie180

 

[mastermulti]

10s is a magic gate. It means that a white sprinter would have to have an
average speed of more than 10m/s, which none has even come close to.
Taking the start into account they'd need a top speed of about 12m/s
and need to sustain that, or there abouts, for 80m!

As I said, a physical impossibility.CHARLIE

Hmm! Matt Shirvington's time of 10.03 (-0.3) would have been sub 10
with any small positive wind..... agreed?(ditto his 10.07s)
so another Matt (call him Mike Shirvington if you like) comes along and
runs more international 100s and gets the chance of better conditions.
Given a fair break regarding injuries it's pretty certain he may not win the
race but he'll probably break 10 on one or several occasions.

That is, unless you really ARE God and HAVE ordained 10.00 a "magic
gate".
You're trash talking now unfortunately after all your good work.
Or are you just having fun being mischievous?Edited by: mastermulti

 

[mastermulti]

"Taking the start into account they'd need a top speed of about 12m/s
and need to sustain that, or there abouts, for 80m! "
Charlie again

Charlie, this was far from a scientific comment and easily refuted.
Our former Australian record holder (and my favourite Aussie sprinter)
Damien
Marsh had a top speed tested at the AIS of 12.03m/ps, very close to the
world's top at the time as witnessed in the Monaco Grand Prix 100m of
1995 when he eased past Bailey, Christie and Drummond in the FINAL 10
metres of the race.

You're losing credibility fastEdited by: mastermulti

 

[white lightning]

Hey mastermulti, I have a question for you. I know that John Woods moved to Australia to attempt to make the Aussie Team. He still is very talented along with guys like Adam Miller and several others. What are there plans now? I feel so bad for all of the young white kids who will never get a chance to compete in track now due to this terrible decision. Australia has had some good sprinters. Maybe Matt Shirvington can say something. I'm really depressed about this and I don't even live there. I can only imagine how you feel. You should organize some track people to try and find some sponsers for the kids who still want to compete. Keep us posted.

 

[albinosprint]

charlie180,

what part of "I have run on cinder tracks and my times are at least .2 sec slower then on a tartan track" don't you understand? I am talking from experience, not guess work.

 

[SteveB]

Charlie,

You're either ignorant or an idiot if you think that there is not a difference between running on a cinder track vs. a tartan track. The modern tartan track wasn't used until around 1980, not 1968. Tartan tracks create "bounce" which makes you run faster. Also, you use short spikes on a tartan track vs. long spikes on cinders. Short spikes don't dig as much, therefore allow faster times. Have you actually ever run track competitively?

 

[charlie180]

mastermulti</span> - But it is based on science. Your sub 10s 100m runner has an average speed of between 5-6m/s in the first 10m. By the second 20m he has reached 9-10m/s and thereafter he has to average 11.5-12+m/s to finish in under 10s. This is impossible for a white sprinter.

Marsh may well have had a top speed of 12m/s but this has to be sustained for 80m. Clearly he never managed it, his PB was 10.13. I am not saying that white sprinters can't match blacks over the short sprint, say 10-20m, but over the full 100m, well just look at the facts.

The fastest ever white runner is Kenteris. In fact the 200m is a much more successful race for white sprinters and there has been many, many decent white sprinters over 200m at the top levels. His time of 19.85s is the fastest a white man has ever run (discounting Mennea's altitude run), he had an average speed of very slightly over 10m/s for that time. If he'd been able to run that speed over 100m he could have run 9.99s.

That if nothing else gives you an idea of the mountain white sprinters would have to climb, despite being able to sustain a top speed for about 160m in the 200m (as oppose to about 60m in the 100m) and therefore have a higher average speed than the 100m, a white sprinter has still only just managed to break 10m/s (10.08m/s). If a white sprinter can barely make it in the faster 200m, they have no chance in the 100m.

albinosprint</span> - It isn't guesswork, the facts speak for themselves. Apart from Mexico City, there was barely any change in the overall sprint times from the switch to modern tracks from cinder. Your experience may differ, but as I stated the times show the difference was not that great.
<br style="font-weight: bold;">SteveB</span> - Firstly, I didn't say there was no difference, I was making the point that the difference was not .2 or .3 of a second. The claim was that if Armin Hary were running on today's tracks, he'd be able to run sub 10s. Not true, his 10s was manually timed so in reality 10.24s, taking into account 'modern tracks', 10.15s, 10.10s at very best.

Secondly, the 1968 Olympic final was the first Olympic 100m final run on a modern track, everyone knows that. Why not take a look at the video.

Sure, the tracks have been altered since, but we're talking hundreths of a second here, not the quarter second white sprinters would need.

Do you even know anything about athletics or do you just like wearing the shoes?

 

[Observer]

albinosprint - It isn't guesswork, the facts speak for themselves. Apart from Mexico City, there was barely any change in the overall sprint times from the switch to modern tracks from cinder. Your experience may differ, but as I stated the times show the difference was not that great.

Charlie, use your head a little.

You have created two sets out of about 5 data points, one set having only one member (Bob Hayes), and the other having just 4 (Hines, Smith, Quarrie, Menna) and drawn the grandiose conclusion that cinder tracks tracks are only a few hundredths slower than modern surfaces. (Not to mention that 3 of these 5 refer to 200m times.)

Now, you seem to be fond of analyzing these sprinting things, and I have thought of a good project for you: create data sets from the races of the school kids next year on the various track surfaces. I assume there are still cinder tracks in your area, yes? It would be possible to create a study that would be of value to others, rather than your inane assertions that you post on this site.

I have never sat down to methodically run through the numbers, but my guess would be about what albinosprint said. But maybe someone else has already run across such a study? (Perhaps some adjustments would need to be made for elite sprinters, because their foot-surface-time is more dependent upon a quality surface than that of a lesser sprinter.)

Also, 19.85 / 2 &lt;&gt; 9.99.

 

[SteveB]

Firstly, I didn't say there was no difference, I was making the point that the difference was not .2 or .3 of a second. The claim was that if Armin Hary were running on today's tracks, he'd be able to run sub 10s. Not true, his 10s was manually timed so in reality 10.24s, taking into account 'modern tracks', 10.15s, 10.10s at very best. Secondly, the 1968 Olympic final was the first Olympic 100m final run on a modern track, everyone knows that. Why not take a look at the video.Sure, the tracks have been altered since, but we're talking hundreths of a second here, not the quarter second white sprinters would need. Do you even know anything about athletics or do you just like wearing the shoes?

No, you're wrong. 1968 was not run on a TARTAN (rubberized) track. It wasn't cinder either. The first non-cinder tracks were tar based, not rubber, a big difference. They were faster than the cinder tracks, but not on the same level as the rubber tracks created around 1980.

As for my athletic background, I ran the sprints in high school, played D1 college football, and worked out with the college track team in the off season.

 

[charlie180]

You have created two sets out of about 5 data points, one set having only one member (Bob Hayes), and the other having just 4 (Hines, Smith, Quarrie, Menna) and drawn the grandiose conclusion that cinder tracks tracks are only a few hundredths slower than modern surfaces. (Not to mention that 3 of these 5 refer to 200m times.)



Now, you seem to be fond of analyzing these sprinting things, and I have thought of a good project for you: create data sets from the races of the school kids next year on the various track surfaces. I assume there are still cinder tracks in your area, yes? It would be possible to create a study that would be of value to others, rather than your inane assertions that you post on this site.


Also, 19.85 / 2 &lt;&gt; 9.99.

I hadn't intended it to be a statistical analysis, more of an observation. The switch from cinder to modern tracks occured in 1968, therefore times from 1968 should have been significantly faster if modern tracks were faster running surfaces.

Times from 1968 onwards did not improve significantly, ergo the surfaces were not that much different. If you have evidence to the contrary???

 

[charlie180]

No, you're wrong. 1968 was not run on a TARTAN (rubberized) track. It wasn't cinder either. The first non-cinder tracks were tar based, not rubber, a big difference. They were faster than the cinder tracks, but not on the same level as the rubber tracks created around 1980.

From Tartan Tracks:

"1968 Summer Olympics at Mexico City was the first Olympic Games to use the Tartan track surface in athletics. The original tradename "Tartan" came from the manufacturer 3M (Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing), manufacturers of Scotch Tape and continuing the Scotch name tradition."

The Tartan track website itself has pictures of the tracks they have been fitting since 1970!

 

[Observer]

You have created two sets out of about 5 data points, one set having only one member (Bob Hayes), and the other having just 4 (Hines, Smith, Quarrie, Menna) and drawn the grandiose conclusion that cinder tracks tracks are only a few hundredths slower than modern surfaces. (Not to mention that 3 of these 5 refer to 200m times.)

Now, you seem to be fond of analyzing these sprinting things, and I have thought of a good project for you: create data sets from the races of the school kids next year on the various track surfaces. I assume there are still cinder tracks in your area, yes? It would be possible to create a study that would be of value to others, rather than your inane assertions that you post on this site.
Also, 19.85 / 2 &lt;&gt; 9.99.

I hadn't intended it to be a statistical analysis, more of an observation. The switch from cinder to modern tracks occured in 1968, therefore times from 1968 should have been significantly faster if modern tracks were faster running surfaces. Times from 1968 onwards did not improve significantly, ergo the surfaces were not that much different. If you have evidence to the contrary???

Sure, it's really easy.

Just try the "observation" again, but this time throw out Bob Hayes' time from the data set and choose the next cluser of timings. Doing so, we have (Hary, Jerome, Esteves) at 10.0 + .24 = 10.24. Now, compare this 10.24 to the fastest cluster of times in the early era of modern surfaces, and it will be a difference of about .2.Edited by: Observer

 

[charlie180]

Sure, it's really easy.



Just try the "observation" again, but this time throw out Bob Hayes' time from the data set and choose the next cluser of timings. Doing so, we have (Hary, Jerome, Esteves) at 10.0 + .24 = 10.24. Now, compare this 10.24 to the fastest cluster of times in the early era of modern surfaces, and it will be a difference of about .2.

Not sure that I follow. Jerome ran in 1964 and in 1968, his time at both events and his overall PB was 10.2. The modern track certainly didn't make any difference to Jerome. Remember, you have to compare automatic timings with automatic timings, if you throw in manual timing, well, quite frankly you're playing around with too many variables.

You'd have to then calculate what difference the track made, and the manual timings. Even so if Jerome ran 10.24 in 1960, 10.2s in 64 and 10.2s in 68, I'd say that was further evidence that modern tracks made a negligible difference.

 

[Observer]

Why do you compare Harry Jerome in 1960 (or '64) with Harry Jerome of 4-8 years later? That does not make sense. However, if you wish to analyze this in the context of Harry Jerome, then maybe try to take his 3rd place 100m finish in 1964 and compare that with a 3rd place finish at an Olympics 100m on a modern surface. It would still not be a good data set, as Mexico City is fast and the track at Munich was reputed to be slow.

I am guessing that there must be a few scientific studies on this topic of old vs. new surfaces.

If white man's sprinting limitations have peaked (and I do think that this is true psychologically and maybe even environmentally, but certainly not genetically), then it is a curious thing to compare a 1960's white bodybuilder compared to a white bodybuilder today. Obviously, in that particular endeavor, white man had not yet peaked in 1960.Edited by: Observer

 

[StarWars]

Wow, I had no idea how badly you guys sh*t on Charlie. Good job. What an A-hole. I was even inspired to write an article recently that willl be up soon. You demolished him! What a thread, wow. You guys beat him up way worse then I ever did on his website.

 

[athlete888]

Charlie,

I share the same theory as yourself that an Asian is most likely to break 10 seconds, I have no rationale for my theory, but the times recorded suggest that they will, notably the Japanese.

Most literature I read seems to indicate that Asians have the lowest amount of fast twitch mucscles, but then you see the Chinese dominate weightlifting at the Olympics and then the Japanese doing well in sprint, both sports require high levels of fast twitch.

Looking at the build of Asians sprinters....muscular legs/calves, slimmer upper body, they are nearly the opposite to that of a Black Athlete, however still do very well in sprints...interesting.

I however disagree with you that no white man will break 10 seconds, I think a 'Jeremy Wariner' 100m sprinter will come along within the next decade and do it.

 

[Alpha Male]

Asians practice sport in a culture that is supportive to Asians; they're homogeneous. In what weight class did Chinese dominate Olympic weightlifting? As far as I understand, Caucasiains dominate weightlifting, power lifting, and strongman - to the point where the one Asian competing in last year's strongman was the as a token for the host country; he could not even cross the finish line in the farmer's walk.
Edited by: Alpha Male

 

[athlete888]

they sweeped the gold medals right up until the 85kg class at the Beijing Olympics , look it up.

The big europeans, dominate the strong man, no doubt about that.

 

[StarWars]

People, people. Everyone is strongest at their AVERAGE size. That is where our greatest % of population lies, and therefore our best chance to be boxers or weightlifters or linemen...

In fact, the only race that has proven they lift weights, cannot dive, do gymnastics, or display the coordination needed to be good at many sports is blacks.

I would say white people usually have a wider range of athletic talent from other races. Blacks usually specialize in sports, take advantage of the caste system, use steroids, and try to go professional instead of persue a real career.

Asians are very strong for their average size. Whites are the strongest and most powerful. Both races are extremely intelligient, although whites are more creative.

I don't want to bash blacks but they are the evolutionary stepping stone to become Asian or white. They are better off in Africa.Edited by: StarWars

 

[white is right]

I think there was a another roid scandal leading up to the 08 Olympics and Greece sent a partial team or pulled their team out. In the past Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey have been the dominant nations in little man lifting. The Chinese until this Olympics were dominant in the tiniest classifications. On the woman's side the Chinese women have been winning virtually all of the divisions though.

 

[charlie180]

Wow, I had no idea how badly you guys sh*t on Charlie. Good job. What an A-hole. I was even inspired to write an article recently that willl be up soon. You demolished him! What a thread, wow. You guys beat him up way worse then I ever did on his website.

You sure did, sometimes you just can't reason with hope, faith and wishful thinking. Year 41 and still no white sub 10s. I am fairly sure that I'll see year 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 etc. So, whilst the inevitable trend continues I am still right, and you're still very, very optimistic.

It'll be interesting to see how whites perform in Berlin, but one thing is for certain, they won't be competing in Berlin at the 100m.

 

[white lightning]

You couldn't be more wrong. Any kind of descent wind and the discussion is over. So your telling me that both Guliyev & Lemaitre(both 19 years of age) will never dip below 10? I will tell you one thing. I will bet me mortgage on my home versus yours that it happens within one year at the latest. Guliyev races tommorow and Lemaitre next week so we may even put this discussion to rest before Berlin.

I feel sorry for you and all the other people who try to discredit white athletes. From Wariner to McClellan to Lemaitre to Guliyev. We can compete and we will be winning medals. Sally already got one and she is going to get more. So will the young guys. You are an ignorant, pathetic, stupid racist for rooting against whites. You may be a grown man, but you act and talk like a little punk ass kid.

What the hell will you do if Lemaitre beats Bolt someday? Cry like a little bitch!Edited by: white lightning