Jesse Owens vs Usain Bolt

Lucas Tanner wrote:

Same shoes, same track, fool proof method for PED testing. Under these conditions Owens edges Bolt. Humans are not getting faster.

under just those similarities, its still Bolt as training has changed since then in a big way.

Tron wrote:

Lucas Tanner wrote:

Same shoes, same track, fool proof method for PED testing. Under these conditions Owens edges Bolt. Humans are not getting faster.

under just those similarities, its still Bolt as training has changed since then in a big way.

It probably would also be to Bolt's advantage that Owens is dead.

Under those conditions Owens might dip under 10, but Bolt would still be 9.85.

not even close.

Bolt is the GOAT.

Owens was fantastic for his time. Bolt could break 10 flat auto on a cinders track. Owens couldn't

And yes athletes are getting faster. Its not smoke and mirrors.

JO ran 10.3 windy hand timed to win.

My career was spent partly on cinders tracks. There is nothing slow about them. You aren't running on the beach.

prolly wrote:

Tron wrote:

under just those similarities, its still Bolt as training has changed since then in a big way.

It probably would also be to Bolt's advantage that Owens is dead.

He was obviously being hypothetical:

fool proof method for PED testing

I saw a TED talk (too lazy to link to it here) where the speaker relates the findings of researchers who apparently compared Owens and Bolt's biomechanics and the speed derived therefrom, eliminating all environmental differences (track, wind, equipment, etc.) and found that when Bolt ran 9.69 in the 2008 Olympics Owens would have finished second, running in the 9.8s.

The talk as a whole is interesting. It's about the evolution of athletic performance; the theory advanced is that athlete recruitment and selection, specialization and equipment are the biggest factors in improved performance.

i back the horse

Both Ralph Metcalfe and Eulace Peacock beat Owens many times. Little known James Johnson beat Owens as did Ivy Leagurer Ben Johnson. And if not for an injury there is a good chance Peacock wins the 36 Oly 100m.

Jesse Owens ran in four Nationals in the 100m, he only won once. He really wasn't all that at 100m. He was all that in the long jump, a fantastic long jumper.

Usain Bolt would totally dominate any era, he's simply on a whole other level. Yes, he's beating Bob Hayes, Carl Lewis, whoever.....all things being equal.

Emerson Perriott wrote:

Usain Bolt would totally dominate any era, he's simply on a whole other level.

Agree, which is why the inclusion of the foolproof drug testing caveat, which makes the debate much more interesting.

If Ben Johnson was as juiced as Bolt he would run 9.39.

Podunk U. wrote:

I saw a TED talk ..........and found that when Bolt ran 9.69 in the 2008 Olympics Owens would have finished second, running in the 9.8s.

Calculo gives TED talks.

A better comparison would be Bob Hayes to Usain Bolt. The shoes were still very heavy leather when Hayes raced in 1964. Hayes was a football player. Track & field was merely a part-time activity for him. Hayes with 5 once or less shoes and synthetic track would have beaten Bolt 7 of 10 times. Note: Hayes raced 10.06 on cinder track. Give Bolt heavy leather shoes. Have Bolt race on a cinder track. Bolt cannot race sub 10.06 on cinder with the same shoes worn by Hayes.

Podunk U. wrote:

I saw a TED talk (too lazy to link to it here) where the speaker relates the findings of researchers who apparently compared Owens and Bolt's biomechanics and the speed derived therefrom, eliminating all environmental differences (track, wind, equipment, etc.) and found that when Bolt ran 9.69 in the 2008 Olympics Owens would have finished second, running in the 9.8s.

The talk as a whole is interesting. It's about the evolution of athletic performance; the theory advanced is that athlete recruitment and selection, specialization and equipment are the biggest factors in improved performance.

Epstein's math is way, way off. Though the tracks were rubbish back then but the sprinters had a different technique.

Bolt wouldn't even run under 10 seconds without the aid of all of the PEDs he's almost certainly taken over his career. Owens would beat him

Double Dog wrote:

Bolt wouldn't even run under 10 seconds without the aid of all of the PEDs he's almost certainly taken over his career. Owens would beat him

Well Andre De Grasse couldn't, according to this doc :

bigger stronger & faster wrote:

A better comparison would be Bob Hayes to Usain Bolt. The shoes were still very heavy leather when Hayes raced in 1964. Hayes was a football player. Track & field was merely a part-time activity for him. Hayes with 5 once or less shoes and synthetic track would have beaten Bolt 7 of 10 times. Note: Hayes raced 10.06 on cinder track. Give Bolt heavy leather shoes. Have Bolt race on a cinder track. Bolt cannot race sub 10.06 on cinder with the same shoes worn by Hayes.

Bob Hayes anchor leg in the sprint relay at the 64 Olympics is still the fastest anchor leg I have ever seen in any major championships.

Hayes had a very impressive 1964 Olympics.

oboeplayerpickle wrote:

not even close.

Bolt is the GOAT.

Owens was fantastic for his time. Bolt could break 10 flat auto on a cinders track. Owens couldn't

And yes athletes are getting faster. Its not smoke and mirrors.

JO ran 10.3 windy hand timed to win.

My career was spent partly on cinders tracks. There is nothing slow about them. You aren't running on the beach.

If athletes are getting faster what is the reason? Have they evolved? If Bolt were born the same year as Owens how fast would he run? Assume the same nutrition, sports background, training, equipment, etc.